From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Hall Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ixgbe_pmd: forbid tx_rs_thresh above 1 for all NICs but 82598 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:17:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20150911171754.GA1572@mhcomputing.net> References: <1439489195-31553-1-git-send-email-vladz@cloudius-systems.com> <55F2F6A9.6080405@cloudius-systems.com> <3734976.j9Azrvq6io@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Vladislav Zolotarov Return-path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7B65681 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:18:53 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 07:18:20PM +0300, Vladislav Zolotarov wrote: > We thought about linearization too. It's doable with extra mempool and it > may be optional so that those that don't need could compile it out and/or > disable it in a runtime... High-level question. How realistic is sending a 40-segment frame in the first place? This whole thing seems kind of academic to me unless I missed something. I usually use 2K pktmbufs and I don't think this is an uncommon size. Most jumbo frame hardware only does 9.5KB max frame size or so. So I am having a hard time imagining how I'd end up with more than 10 segments as a worst-case scenario. Matthew.