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: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:39:27 +0530 Message-ID: <20161102130925.GC2564@localhost.localdomain> References: <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> <20161028030140.GA2967@localhost.localdomain> <20161028083646.GA82872@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20161028090648.GA32750@localhost.localdomain> <20161102112520.GB30658@localhost.localdomain> <20161102113551.GA40328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Vangati, Narender" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Eads, Gage" To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0064.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.64]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAC02BA3 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:09:51 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161102113551.GA40328@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, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:35:51AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:55:22PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:36:48PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:31:41AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > 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: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > I suppose it could work, but why bother doing that? If an app knows it's > > > > only going to use one traffic type, why not let it just state what it > > > > will do rather than try to specify what it won't do. If mixed is needed, > > > > > > My thought was more inline with ethdev spec, like, ref-count is default, > > > if application need exception then set ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT. But it is OK, if > > > you need other way. > > > > > > > then it's easy enough to specify - and we can make it the zero/default > > > > value too. > > > > > > OK. Then we will make MIX as zero/default and add "allowed_event_types" in > > > event queue config. > > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > I have tried to make it as "allowed_event_types" in event queue config. > > However, rte_event_queue_default_conf_get() can also take NULL for default > > configuration. So I think, It makes sense to go with negation approach > > like ethdev to define the default to avoid confusion on the default. So > > I am thinking like below now, > > > > ➜ [master][libeventdev] $ git diff > > diff --git a/rte_eventdev.h b/rte_eventdev.h > > index cf22b0e..cac4642 100644 > > --- a/rte_eventdev.h > > +++ b/rte_eventdev.h > > @@ -429,6 +429,12 @@ rte_event_dev_configure(uint8_t dev_id, struct > > rte_event_dev_config *config); > > * > > * \see rte_event_port_setup(), rte_event_port_link() > > */ > > +#define RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_NOATOMIC_TYPE (1ULL << 1) > > +/**< Skip configuring atomic schedule type resources */ > > +#define RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_NOORDERED_TYPE (1ULL << 2) > > +/**< Skip configuring ordered schedule type resources */ > > +#define RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_NOPARALLEL_TYPE (1ULL << 3) > > +/**< Skip configuring parallel schedule type resources */ > > > > /** Event queue configuration structure */ > > struct rte_event_queue_conf { > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I'm ok with the default as being all types, in the case where NULL is > specified for the parameter. It does make the most sense. Yes. That case I need to explicitly mention in the documentation about what is default case. With RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_NOATOMIC_TYPE scheme it quite understood what is default. Not adding up? :-) > > However, for the cases where the user does specify what they want, I > think it does make more sense, and is easier on the user for things to > be specified in a positive, rather than negative sense. For a user who > wants to just use atomic events, having to specify that as "not-reordered > and not-unordered" just isn't as clear! :-) > > /Bruce >