On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 18:12:20 +0000 "Randy Tice (rtice)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stephen, > I’m thinking, perhaps the best path forward for now, is to continue using a > private mbuf layout and carry the collateral internally — at least for now. > The changes are getting well beyond the initial desired impacts and has > potential make things become unstable. > > I would love to see some sort of solution along these lines in the future so > we can discontinue the use of a private patch. To be clear, the solution is > not built around cnxk, cnxk is just impacted — we have several other platform > builds that do not use cnxk but we still carry the metadata in the mbuf > itself for performance reasons. > > WRT the skip functions, we fit under the 384 max for wqe but there’s no room > for additional growth beyond that with how it’s laid out. The other 2 are not > as sensitive to the size but still have valid limits which are well beyond > our use case. Today we carry 256 bytes which caps us on wqe. > > That said, we plan to discuss internally next week on how to move forward as > we prep for our v25.11 upgrade work. I want to thank you and Morten, however, > for your time and support on this work. > Regards, > -rt I do think CNXK needs fixing.
