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 130A2A0352; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:10:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242722BF3; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:10:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760952BAF; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:10:29 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2019 01:10:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,270,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="401915544" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2019 01:10:27 -0800 Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.252]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:10:26 +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: AQHVeGt1PghzvMyi1UGof2wAAdzVAqdVYHmAgAAtjwCABbfQAIAAJLqAgABntICAF0YRAIADZOMAgATMzlCAASOqAIAAEjCA Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801A8C7FB24@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> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801A8C7F304@IRSMSX104.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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiODFiNzAzMzAtMjljZS00NTZlLTk4M2UtNmExMmJiOWI2N2Q3IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiNmNXTXZTV1VcL0RHSVwvblFrejdVaUh1cHpaMVM5dG5qbUQ5NlBtbmQxeDNmZkwyNVRmUk1YMlp3YXlrYTlqN2wwIn0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] 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= impact > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > > > on a key example application which is normally demonstrat= ed to > > > > > > > customers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IPSec library is still evolving and there are new functio= nality > > > > > > > > > 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 wo= uld > > > > > > > request other Vendors to confirm if they are OK with the perf= ormance > > > > > numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you give some details on the performance issues you are s= eeing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were observing about 4-5% drop when using the ipsec-lib instea= d 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 ba= se on > > NXP hardware. > > > > > > We cannot merge this. Anoob also reported performance issues on Marve= ll > > hardware. > > > > 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, Ma= rvell, ...). > > If everyone is ok with it, then I think it would be good to have some d= raft > > timeline here. > > If you guys are not interested in this effort, then the only other appr= oach I can > > think about: > > 2. split ipsec-secgw app into 2 (one using librte_ipsec, second using r= aw devices > > (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 cl= ear decision, > > one way or another. > > >=20 > IMO, Option 1 is the only way forward. From NXP side, we can start our wo= rk on this post 19.11 release and should target in 20.02 release. Great to hear. Thanks for clarification. Konstantin