From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John Daley (johndale)" Subject: Re: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , Wenzhuo Lu , "Konstantin Ananyev" , Beilei Xing , Qi Zhang , Jingjing Wu , "Adrien Mazarguil" , Nelio Laranjeiro , Yongseok Koh , "Shahaf Shuler" , Tomasz Duszynski , "Jianbo Liu" , Alejandro Lucero , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , Harish Patil , Rasesh Mody , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3733A1B823 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:59:12 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, Inline. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:48 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde ; Jerin Jacob > ; Shijith Thotton > ; Santosh Shukla > ; Rahul Lakkireddy > ; John Daley (johndale) ; > Wenzhuo Lu ; Konstantin Ananyev > ; Beilei Xing ; Qi Z= hang > ; Jingjing Wu ; Adrien Mazar= guil > ; Nelio Laranjeiro > ; Yongseok Koh ; Shahaf > Shuler ; Tomasz Duszynski ; > Jianbo Liu ; Alejandro Lucero > ; Hemant Agrawal > ; Shreyansh Jain ; > Harish Patil ; Rasesh Mody > ; Andrew Rybchenko > ; Shrikrishna Khare ; > Maxime Coquelin ; Allain Legacy > ; Bruce Richardson > ; Gaetan Rivet ; > Olivier Matz > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API >=20 > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." >=20 > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags in > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, when call= ing > respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for ea= ch > queue. >=20 > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not repeated= in > queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html >=20 > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port offload= s in > queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? YES >=20 >=20 > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation and rem= ove > the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs swit= ched > to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, the sonner= it is > fixed, the better. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? >=20 >=20 YES > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at port l= evel, > cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES >=20 >=20 > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every = queue > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it ca= n be > applied to a specific queue. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES >=20 >=20 > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) Thank you >=20