From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474C6A0352; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:24:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842AF34F0; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:24:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC815343C; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:24:37 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Nov 2019 07:24:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,267,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="403004305" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2019 07:24:35 -0800 Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.252]) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:24:34 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Akhil Goyal , "Iremonger, Bernard" , Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "anoobj@marvell.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , dpdk-techboard Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 0/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: set default Thread-Index: AQHVeGt1PghzvMyi1UGof2wAAdzVAqdVYHmAgAAtjwCABbfQAIAAJLqAgABntICAF0YRAIADZOMAgATMzlA= Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:24:34 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801A8C7F304@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1567069173-10505-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1569943080-20228-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <5630388.AILYuOXkcA@xps> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C260E0E213@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C260E14C88@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjZiYzIwYzMtNjUxYy00Y2EwLThiNjItNmM3YzE3YzFmOThlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiSVBPcldcL2lqQUZvWWlWYkFiMG1DNkpoZVwvUHFnRzMwYmJWS1N3QnlmM29uOTJEM0J0S254QVRLcTdMNTQyT0Q5In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: set default X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list 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 Akhil, > > > > > > > > > > > > 11/10/2019 14:40, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patchset would need ack from more vendors as it will imp= act > > > > > > > user > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > on a key example application which is normally demonstrated t= o > > > > > customers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IPSec library is still evolving and there are new functionali= ty > > > > > > > added every > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > Atleast from NXP side we are not OK with this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > What can be changed in the library to make it acceptable as a > > > > > > default in this example? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are observing performance issues with ipsec library. So would > > > > > request other Vendors to confirm if they are OK with the performa= nce > > > numbers. > > > > > > > > Could you give some details on the performance issues you are seein= g. > > > > > > > > > > We were observing about 4-5% drop when using the ipsec-lib instead of= the > > > Legacy code path. We would again measure it on RC1. That is why I say= , I will > > > Hold this patch till RC2, unless some other vendor also confirms that= . > > > > Is there any update on performance measurements on 19.11-rc1 ? > > > The performance impact of this patch is huge ~10% w.r.t. 19.11-rc1 base o= n NXP hardware. >=20 > We cannot merge this. Anoob also reported performance issues on Marvell h= ardware. Sure, 10% is a lot, so more than understandable. Though, I think we do need to decide our future goals for it. I see two main options here: 1. Make lib code-path on par with legacy one in terms of performance, deprecate and then remove legacy code-path. Till that happen (deprecation/removal) to minimize code divergence, forbid to add new features to legacy code path only. New features should be added to both paths, or library code path. Obviously that one looks like a preferred option to me, but it requires some effort from all interested parties (Intel, NXP, Marvel= l, ...). If everyone is ok with it, then I think it would be good to have some draft= timeline here. If you guys are not interested in this effort, then the only other approach= I can think about: =20 2. split ipsec-secgw app into 2 (one using librte_ipsec, second using raw d= evices (legacy one)). We probably can still try to keep some code shared by 2 apps: (configuration/initialization/session management (SAD, SPD)), but actual packet processing path will be different. I really don't like that option, but I think we need to come-up with clear = decision, one way or another.=20 Thanks Konstantin =20 =20 =20