From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1481B5697 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 16:34:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so62347106wiu.1 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=g/7+wtCxiiOcxrIZs5j9yUL2RfMFR2O32eK9YP6BeKk=; b=i1+2Tnz0JzSrI+JFT2m3xPSlzkCRWITSLTSlrMc6IVIi4iC8ZSlrNyPyNeWqD0pT6x hahAY2zhlp87wDTRk/B4y1YyIGm/A+/Fxwk2pNTiwlaYgaZhnGUwDjiXM+dk9D3QD+DY DBOfKw+OV1G/s+tmukyFMLWJNkedfo6ltzoy6Aa46SDZL7qGhvW4m1Y6VcyBfd53OSEe wmAx5zG4GJCej8yKmhJLndyZBKt8FUUz1i1g3yuOyiGbk9GUj7pSxjrYw7bZZ8fqi1mH eK+XQgMqwtuBEPpdp4jO3wVyU+QCn/vQYej5Oo0sSQ3l/WtD8UI2mqsLYDrdzuTiOG6l eR8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWOBIMAtAdOIi1QJsuUOR7sS12uuwstDlEPbJb+lGhUVyG91mTGzfXIR0/800D7/1aRVn1 X-Received: by 10.181.13.113 with SMTP id ex17mr7526067wid.12.1431009276880; Thu, 07 May 2015 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.0.189] (6wind.net2.nerim.net. [213.41.180.237]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fo7sm4316411wic.1.2015.05.07.07.34.35 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 May 2015 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <554B77FA.3050404@6wind.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:34:34 +0200 From: Ivan Boule User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity , "O'Driscoll, Tim" References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D29B55@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 14:34:37 -0000 Hi Avi, On 05/07/2015 04:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim > wrote: > >> Does anybody have any input or comments on this? >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: O'Driscoll, Tim >>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:39 AM >>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>> Subject: Beyond DPDK 2.0 >>> >>> Following the launch of DPDK by Intel as an internal development >>> project, the launch of dpdk.org by 6WIND in 2013, and the first DPDK RPM >>> packages for Fedora in 2014, 6WIND, Red Hat and Intel would like to >>> prepare for future releases after DPDK 2.0 by starting a discussion on >>> its evolution. Anyone is welcome to join this initiative. >>> >>> Since then, the project has grown significantly: >>> - The number of commits and mailing list posts has increased >>> steadily. >>> - Support has been added for a wide range of new NICs (Mellanox >>> support submitted by 6WIND, Cisco VIC, Intel i40e and fm10k etc.). >>> - DPDK is now supported on multiple architectures (IBM Power support >>> in DPDK 1.8, Tile support submitted by EZchip but not yet reviewed or >>> applied). >>> >>> While this is great progress, we need to make sure that the project is >>> structured in a way that enables it to continue to grow. To achieve >>> this, 6WIND, Red Hat and Intel would like to start a discussion about >>> the future of the project, so that we can agree and establish processes >>> that satisfy the needs of the current and future DPDK community. >>> >>> We're very interested in hearing the views of everybody in the >>> community. In addition to debate on the mailing list, we'll also >>> schedule community calls to discuss this. >>> >>> >>> Project Goals >>> ------------- >>> >>> Some topics to be considered for the DPDK project include: >>> - Project Charter: The charter of the DPDK project should be clearly >>> defined, and should explain the limits of DPDK (what it does and does >>> not cover). This does not mean that we would be stuck with a singular >>> charter for all time, but the direction and intent of the project should >>> be well understood. >> > > > One problem we've seen with dpdk is that it is a framework, not a library: > it wants to create threads, manage memory, and generally take over. This > is a problem for us, as we are writing a framework (seastar, [1]) and need > to create threads, manage memory, and generally take over ourselves. > > Perhaps dpdk can be split into two layers, a library layer that only > provides mechanisms, and a framework layer that glues together those > mechanisms and applies a policy, trading in generality for ease of use. > > [1] http://seastar-project.org > I fully agree with this analysis/proposal. And I think that: - the associated modifications should be done ASAP, - the underlying design rules that this proposal refers to should drive the design and review of new DPDK features. Regards, Ivan