From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: Initial implementation of PQoS EAL extension Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:45:40 +0100 Message-ID: <5486342.uyFgSA1Ajk@xps13> References: <1520606.5uKYNpmzaU@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B0AB6C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Kantecki, Tomasz" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C74C2B98 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:47:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a4so25853737wme.1 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:47:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B0AB6C@irsmsx105.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" 2016-02-24 11:21, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:35 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org; Kantecki, Tomasz > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: Initial implementation of PQoS EAL extension > > > > 2016-02-24 10:22, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:10 AM > > > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kantecki, Tomasz > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: Initial implementation of PQoS EAL extension > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:24:33AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2016-02-23 23:03, Kantecki, Tomasz: > > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > > > > If there is nothing specific in DPDK for PQos, why writing an example in > > > > > > > DPDK? > > > > > > The example makes it much easier to use the technology with DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the example should be better in the library itself. > > > > > > The library in question (https://github.com/01org/intel-cmt-cat) has a couple of examples but none of them refers to DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mention the library in > > > > > > > doc/guides/linux_gsg/nic_perf_intel_platform.rst > > > > > > Ok it can be added to this document. Does it imply -1 for the sample code idea? > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but I have the feeling the example is more about PQoS than DPDK. > > > > > So yes, I would vote -1. > > > > > > > > > Well, the intersection of DPDK and PQoS is what the example is really all about, > > > > and as such it is relevant to both DPDK and the library itself. Platform QoS > > > > can be of great use to packet processing applications for helping to ensure that > > > > the app gets the resources it needed - especially in a virtualised world - and > > > > so we believe that having an example in DPDK showing how to use PQoS with DPDK > > > > is well worthwhile having. It's more effective than a simple doc update in > > > > raising awareness of the existence of the feature, and also provides for DPDK > > > > users a readily available app for the user to start playing with to evaluate > > > > PQoS for their own use-cases. > > > > > > +1 > > > I also think it is a good thing to have. > > > Again user don't have to trust the whitepapers - instead he can run the app > > > and measure performance gain on his particular platform. > > > > I totally agree the example is good to have. > > Konstantin, are you thinking it must be hosted in the PQoS lib repository? > > Personally I prefer it to be part of dpdk samples. > DPDK IO code path is a bit different from what the 'classical' user app usually does - > a lot of polling, avoid system calls, etc. > Also it would probably have much better visibility here. > Again, as Bruce already mentioned, we have QAT & TAP samples, why we can't have PQoS too. Indeed the DPDK policies are really flexible. How would you suggest to decide which examples can enter in DPDK? Examples: what about a zip compression in the forwarding plane? What about a VM2VM failover synchronization?