From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH v2] libeventdev: event driven programming model framework for DPDK Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:31:41 +0530 Message-ID: <20161028030140.GA2967@localhost.localdomain> References: <20161005072451.GA2358@localhost.localdomain> <1476214216-31982-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <20161025174904.GA18333@localhost.localdomain> <20161026122416.GA21509@localhost.localdomain> <20161026125414.GB33288@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Vangati, Narender" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Eads, Gage" , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0080.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.80]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFED2326C for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 05:02:07 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161026125414.GB33288@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> 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 Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:54:14PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:54:17PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:11:03PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob > Thanks. One other suggestion is that it might be useful to provide > support for having typed queues explicitly in the API. Right now, when > you create an queue, the queue_conf structure takes as parameters how > many atomic flows that are needed for the queue, or how many reorder > slots need to be reserved for it. This implicitly hints at the type of > traffic which will be sent to the queue, but I'm wondering if it's > better to make it explicit. There are certain optimisations that can be > looked at if we know that a queue only handles packets of a particular > type. [Not having to handle reordering when pulling events from a core > can be a big win for software!]. If it helps in SW implementation, then I think we can add this in queue configuration. > > How about adding: "allowed_event_types" as a field to > rte_event_queue_conf, with possible values: > * atomic > * ordered > * parallel > * mixed - allowing all 3 types. I think allowing 2 of three types might > make things too complicated. > > An open question would then be how to behave when the queue type and > requested event type conflict. We can either throw an error, or just > ignore the event type and always treat enqueued events as being of the > queue type. I prefer the latter, because it's faster not having to > error-check, and it pushes the responsibility on the app to know what > it's doing. How about making default as "mixed" and let application configures what is not required?. That way application responsibility is clear. something similar to ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTSEGS, ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT with default. /Jerin > > /Bruce