From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] virtio support for container
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:48:45 +0300
Message-ID: <00d901d14d26$d04fc600$70ef5200$@samsung.com>
References: <1446748276-132087-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1452426182-86851-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <058a01d14c7b$5cdc60d0$16952270$@samsung.com> <5693CFE4.4060405@intel.com>
 <009a01d14d0c$3ab6cd60$b0246820$@samsung.com>
 <CAGSMBPMTCmPvOfCv1RzrCzPK5xNE7oP_WfieyB8gaqD+dNJmGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b101d14d14$bab82510$30286f30$@samsung.com> <5694BE75.7010708@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp, "'Michael S. Tsirkin'" <mst@redhat.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com
To: "'Tan, Jianfeng'" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>,
 'Rich Lane' <rich.lane@bigswitch.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com (mailout1.w1.samsung.com
 [210.118.77.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3508CCE7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:48:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245])
 by mailout1.w1.samsung.com
 (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014))
 with ESMTP id <0O0U00MT661B8N80@mailout1.w1.samsung.com> for dev@dpdk.org;
 Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:48:47 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <5694BE75.7010708@intel.com>
Content-language: ru
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

 Hello!

> Your guess makes sense because current implementation does not support
> multi-queues.
>=20
>  From you log, only 0 and 1 are "ready for processing"; others are =
"not
> ready for processing".

 Yes, and if study it even more carefully, we see that we initialize all =
tx queues but only a single rx queue (#0).
 After some more code browsing and comparing the two patchsets i figured =
out that the problem is caused by inappropriate VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ =
flag. In your RFC you used different capability set, while in v1 you =
seem to have forgotten about this.
 I suggest to temporarily move hw->guest_features assignment out of =
virtio_negotiate_features() into the caller, where we have =
eth_dev->dev_type, and can choose the right set depending on it.

 With all mentioned fixes i've got the ping running.
 Tested-by: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>

Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia