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 17:30:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1669220.vPRjOWmzOr@xps13> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B0AD59@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBE42BB0 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:32:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a4so37804215wme.1 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:32:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B0AD59@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 15:14, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > 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? > > That's a good question, for which I don't have an exact answer. > Probably a good opportunity for the TB to show itself :) > My input would be - to justify new sample for dpdk+third-party-lib it has to demonstrate one of: > a) clear performance gain for the existing dpdk application, > i.e under scenario X with library Y dpdk app Z shows N% better performance. > (PQos example). > b) how to integrate dpdk based app with some well-known and widely used technology. > (tap example, using fuse to implement vhost example). > c) How to expand packet processing with the functionality that is not part of dpdk project. > So yes, if tomorrow someone will come up with example that does packet compression, > or encryption or DPI using some third party library, I think we at least have to consider to > include it inside dpdk.org/examples. > > As a restriction I would put that the example has to be relatively small and simple > and demonstrate particular feature usage. > Plus I think that this third-party library has to be freely available and open-sourced. It looks reasonnable. I'd like we have such description in the doc (doc/guides/sample_app_ug/). If everybody agree on such doc patch, we would have an official policy.