[dpdk-dev] mbuf changes

Thomas Monjalon thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Tue Oct 25 16:54:29 CEST 2016


2016-10-25 14:32, Ramia, Kannan Babu:
> I didn't get your question. The only information exchanged between the stages is mbuf pointer. So the information has to be in mbuf, whether it's part of Meta or in private area in the packet buffer headroom is that the question you are asking. The private area is application specific, while I am looking for the port information getting updated from driver to application and it's generic to multiple applications. 

Thanks, your answer is perfect (except it is top-posted ;)

The discussion is more about performance. So you agree that the port
information is not performance sensitive.
It appears that it could be an information filled in a private area
at app-level, because the application knows which port it is polling.
However we may need a way to put some generic informations somewhere,
not in the first cache lines.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:54 PM
> To: Ramia, Kannan Babu <kannan.babu.ramia at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>; Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] mbuf changes
> 
> 2016-10-25 13:04, Ramia, Kannan Babu:
> > Port filed is important meta information for the application use like 
> > CGNAT vEPC functions etc.
> > I strongly recommend to keep the field in mind meta.
> 
> Have you tried to move this field outside of the mbuf?
> What is the performance degradation?
> We need more information than some assumptions.
> 




More information about the dev mailing list