[dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Jul 22 17:01:46 CEST 2015


As I remember, the problem is that inside l3fwd each I/O lcore tries to claim a TX queue on each port in use for itself
(to avoid any synchronisation overhead).
Obviously on some legacy (and virtual) devices this is not possible.
On l3fwd-vf, several lcores share the same TX queue.
(synchronisation is done on port basis right now, i.e. only one tx queue per port is always used). 
Konstantin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:51 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon; Liu, Yong; Cao, Waterman
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
> 
> Marvin/Waterman
> 
> Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40g, PF and VF, single queue/multiple queue)?
> We aim to remove l3fwd-vf to reduce an example application which is not so necessary.
> Thank you!
> 
> Regards,
> Helin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30 AM
> > To: Zhang, Helin
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
> >
> > 2015-07-14 14:50, Zhang, Helin:
> > > From: Wu, Jingjing
> > > > Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf.
> > > > Suggest to remove the l3fwd-vf example.
> > > Totally agree with this!
> > > But we need the confirmation from validation guys of that l3fwd works
> > > quite well on VF with all NICs (e.g. i350, 82599, x550, xl710, and fm10k).
> >
> > Helin, any new from validation?


More information about the dev mailing list