[dpdk-users] When do we get non-contiguous mbufs from rte_eth_rx_burst?

[Lazarenko, Vlad (WorldQuant)]

Stephen,

Got it. Thank you bunches!

- V

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:35 PM
> To: Lazarenko, Vlad (WorldQuant)
> Cc: users at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] When do we get non-contiguous mbufs from
> rte_eth_rx_burst?
> 
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:17:56 +0000
> "Lazarenko, Vlad (WorldQuant)" <Vlad.Lazarenko at worldquant.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to receive non-contiguous
> mbufs from rte_eth_rx_burst? If so, when would this happen? I am thinking
> that NICs with LSO enabled could possibly do this if data does not fit into
> RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE? But if the packet fits, I don't see why the
> driver could possibly split that across multiple mbufs. Any insight is highly
> appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vlad
> 
> 
> Any driver that handles jumbo frames is going to return a multiple segment
> mbuf when given a mbuf pool with smaller buffers. It is common to create
> 2K mbuf pool and handle 9K frames.
> 
> >
> >
> ###################################################################
> ###
> > #############
> >
> > The information contained in this communication is confidential, may
> > be
> >
> > subject to legal privilege, and is intended only for the individual named.
> >
> > If you are not the named addressee, please notify the sender
> > immediately and
> >
> > delete this email from your system.  The views expressed in this email
> > are
> >
> > the views of the sender only.  Outgoing and incoming electronic
> > communications
> >
> > to this address are electronically archived and subject to review
> > and/or disclosure
> >
> > to someone other than the recipient.
> >
> >
> ###################################################################
> ###
> > #############
> 
> Please don't use such Lawyer stuff on public mailing lists.
> In fact according to the wording, it probably is against your rules for me to
> respond to it.


###################################################################################

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be

subject to legal privilege, and is intended only for the individual named.

If you are not the named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and

delete this email from your system.  The views expressed in this email are

the views of the sender only.  Outgoing and incoming electronic communications

to this address are electronically archived and subject to review and/or disclosure

to someone other than the recipient.

###################################################################################