From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0484BE1 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:56:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2017 03:56:16 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,306,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="110947379" Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2017 03:56:15 -0700 Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.250]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.191]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:56:08 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: "Van Haaren, Harry" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Wiles, Keith" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept Thread-Index: AdLbug0EIDngSYVITLmskNXYmitsLAAmDFfAAJaZv6AAAasPgA== Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:56:07 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB06145@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB0525F@IRSMSX109.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: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 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] [RFCv2] service core concept 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 10:56:18 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Van Haaren, Harry > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:26 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Jerin Jacob ; Richardson, Bruce > ; Wiles, Keith > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 11:23 AM > > To: Van Haaren, Harry ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Jerin Jacob ; > > Richardson, Bruce ; Wiles, Keith > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept >=20 > >=20 > > > In particular this version of the API enables applications that are n= ot aware of services to > > > benefit from the services concept, as EAL args can be used to setup s= ervices and service > > cores. > > > With this design, switching to/from SW/HW PMD is transparent to the a= pplication. An example > > > use-case is the Eventdev HW PMD to Eventdev SW PMD that requires a se= rvice core. > > > > > > I have noted the implementation comments that were raised on the v1. = For v2, I think our > > time > > > is better spent looking at the API design, and I will handle implemen= tation feedback in the > > > follow-up patchset to v2 RFC. > > > > > > Below a summary of what we are trying to achieve, and the current API= design. > > > Have a good weekend! Cheers, -Harry > > > > > > Looks good to me in general. > > The only comment I have - do we really need to put it into rte_eal_init= () > > and a new EAL command-line parameter for it? > > Might be better to leave it to the particular app to decide. >=20 >=20 > There are a number of options here, each with its own merit: >=20 > A) Services/cores config in EAL > Benefit is that service functionality can be transparent to the applicati= on. Negative is that the complexity is in EAL. It is not only complexity of EAL, as I understand, it would mean that EAL will have a dependency on this new library. Konstantin >=20 > B) Application configures services/cores > Benefit is no added EAL complexity. Negative is that application code has= to configure cores (duplicated per application). >=20 >=20 > To answer this question, I think we need to estimate how many application= s would benefit from EAL integration and balance that against > the "complexity cost" of doing so. I do like the simplicity of option (B)= , however if there is significant value in total transparency to the > application I think (A) is the better choice. >=20 >=20 > Input on A) or B) welcomed! -Harry