From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Declan Doherty Subject: Re: Bond port with multiple queues Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:49:19 +0000 Message-ID: <565F12FF.9030503@intel.com> References: <1798136.BiEt3LMkbp@stand> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sergey Balabanov , dev Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0535913 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:50:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1798136.BiEt3LMkbp@stand> 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 02/12/15 13:11, Sergey Balabanov wrote: > Hello, > > I configured a bond port with 2 rx queues on it and added 2 slaves into the > bond port. When I run traffic I get all packets on queue #0. This is quite > expected when RSS turned off. When I turn on RSS all packets are distributed > between two rx queues. There is no guarantee that I will get all packets from > the slave port #0 on some queue and all packets from the slave port #1 on > another queue. > Does anybody know is there a way to configure bond port in a way when all traffic > on port #0 goes to queue #0 and traffic on port #1 goes to queue #1? > > Thanks, > Sergey Balabanov > Hey Sergey, this is the behavior I would expect. The way we've implemented it the same RSS configuration will get applied to each slave, so in the case of say a fail over event in active backup mode as rx traffic is moved onto a new master the traffic flows will be directed to the same queues as before. If I understand what you are asking for I'm not sure why you need a bonded port, why not just used the 2 ports with a single queue each rather than a single bonded port with 2 queues? Declan