From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ymo Lists Subject: Re: Is it possible to have dpdk running with no dependency on a nic ? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:11:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5D695A7F6F10504DBD9B9187395A21797C6E384A@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5D695A7F6F10504DBD9B9187395A21797C6E384A-P5GAC/sN6hlQxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Than you so much Jayakumar for your help. Quick note. In the document you pointed It states that "Enqueuing and dequeuing items from an rte_ring using the rings-based PMD may be slower than using the native rings API. This is because Intel=AE DPD= K Ethernet drivers make use of function pointers to call the appropriate enqueue or dequeue functions, while the rte_ring specific functions are direct function calls in the code and are often inlined by the compiler." Is that statement correct ? I would imagine that inlined code would be be faster than using function pointers ? Also what are the native apis ? it does not make it very clear. could you make it clear what is referrend as "native rings API" ? On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Jayakumar, Muthurajan < muthurajan.jayakumar-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Can you please refer Chapter 15.1.2 of the programmer's manual > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/guides/intel-= dpdk-programmers-guide.pdftitled "Rings-based PMD". > It indicates that " To run an Intel(r) DPDK application on a machine > without any Ethernet devices, a pair of ring-based rte_ethdevs can be use= d > as below" > As Vivek indicated, the ring based PMD (libte_pmd_ring) allows a set of > s/w FIFOs (that is rte_ring) to be accessed using the PMD APIs, as though > they were physical NICs" > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Ymo Lists > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:20 AM > Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Is it possible to have dpdk running with no > dependency on a nic ? > > Could you please point me to a sample doing this ? All the sample i have > seen are initializing the eal and that involves initializing the nics. Is > there a sample ? Can you mock up some code ? > > plz plzzz :-) > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Vivek Soni wrote: > > > Yes, It is very well possible to run DPDK without dependency on the NIC= . > > But it all depends what you want to do. > > The two DPDK applications can communicate using the ring library > > provided by DPDK. In case there is no NIC, DPDK provides pure software > > based PMDs which can be used on systems without a NIC or with > > unsupported NIC using standard kernel drivers. > > > > Hope it helps. > > > > Regards, > > Vivek > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ymo Lists wrote: > > > > > Is this a faq ??? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Ymo Lists wrote= : > > > > > > > 1) I have two apps that need to communicate on the same machine . > > > > Is it possible to have these two apps communicating via dpdk > > > > without > > > referencing > > > > a nic ? > > > > > > > > 2) The apps need to run on an amazon vm. How can you run dpdk on > > > > an > > > amazon > > > > vm with only one nic if the above is not possible ? > > > > > > > > > >