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 Br?rup > <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. >
