[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' target

> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:25 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' > target > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:49:58AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin

[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' target

> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:12 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' > target > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:31:03PM +0100, Konstantin Ananyev

[dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?

> My cpu is "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz" It is a Westmere if I am correct. So,use UIO.

[dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?

* Vincent JARDIN (vincent.jardin at 6wind.com) wrote: > > My cpu is "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz" > > It is a Westmere if I am correct. So,use UIO. My experience is that the CPU isn't as an important part of the platform as the chipset. IOW, VFIO requires full IOMMU isolation

[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' target

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:09:34PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:25 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for > >

[dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?

On 08/08/2014 09:41, Linhaifeng wrote: > I have test the VFIO driver and IGB_UIO driver by l2fwd for many times. I > find that the VFIO driver?s performance is not better than the IGB_UIO. You are right, under some conditions UIO is faster, VFIO provides safety. The best solution is a PMD without

[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for 'default' target

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:49:58AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:12 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] librte_acl make it build/work for > > '

[dpdk-dev] 答复: Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?

Thank you very much. My cpu is "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz" -- ???: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin at 6wind.com] : 2014?8?8? 15:46 ???: Linhaifeng ??: dev at dpdk.org; lixiao (H); Guofeng (E) ??: Re: [dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better tha

[dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?

I have test the VFIO driver and IGB_UIO driver by l2fwd for many times. I find that the VFIO driver?s performance is not better than the IGB_UIO. Is something wrong with my test? My test is as follow: 1. bind two 82599 ether to VFIO ./tools/dpdk_nic_bind.py -b vfio-pci 03:00.0 03:00.1 2

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/librte_vhost: vhost library support to facilitate integration with vswitch.

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:59 AM > To: Xie, Huawei > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/librte_vhost: vhost library support to > facilitate integration with vswitch. > >

[dpdk-dev] One pkt in mbuf chain - virtio pmd driver

Hi, First of all thank you for quick answer! Do we know when exactly this feature will be available? Best Regards, Tomasz Czaus -Original Message- From: Xie, Huawei Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:07 AM To: Czaus, Tomasz; dev at dpdk.org Cc: Long, Thomas Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] One p