Hi Connor,
On 12/20/21, 9:03 PM, "Min Hu (Connor)" wrote:
> Hi, Sanford,
> > There is *NO* benefit for the consumer thread (interrupt thread
> > executing tx_machine()) to have caches on per-slave LACPDU pools.
> > The interrupt thread is a control thread, i.e., a non-EAL thread.
> > Its lcore
Hello Connor,
Please see responses inline.
On 12/17/21, 10:44 PM, "Min Hu (Connor)" wrote:
> > When the number of used tx-descs (0..255) + number of mbufs in the
> > cache (0..47) reaches 257, then allocation fails.
> >
> > If I understand the LACP tx-burst code correctly, it would be
> > wor
Hello Connor,
Thank you for the questions and comments. I will repeat the questions, followed
by my answers.
Q: Could you be more detailed, why is mbuf pool caching not needed?
A: The short answer: under certain conditions, we can run out of
buffers from that small, LACPDU-mempool. We actually
- Turn off mbuf pool caching to avoid mbufs lingering in pool caches.
At most, we transmit one LACPDU per second, per port.
- Fix calculation of ring sizes, taking into account that a ring of
size N holds up to N-1 items.
Signed-off-by: Robert Sanford
---
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_802
4 matches
Mail list logo
