From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9FA5F20 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:13:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 3C0FE14007C; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (84.52.114.114) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:13:16 +0100 To: Thomas Monjalon , CC: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , 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 , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , Allain Legacy , Bruce Richardson , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: <93ee347b-3474-30c5-d35e-cd2766dcb34a@solarflare.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:13:11 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [84.52.114.114] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-11.0.0.1191-8.100.1062-23750.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.767600-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-MDID: 1522422812-dMzMiFf9M+vC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API 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: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:13:34 -0000 On 03/30/2018 04:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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." > > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags > in rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, > when calling respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each queue. > > 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 > > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port > offloads in queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html > > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads > > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? Yes > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation > and remove the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs > switched 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. > > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? Yes > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. > > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes > 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 can be applied to a specific queue. > > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes, may be it would be good to be more precise what "can be applied" mean. As I understand it is "can be enabled on queue when it is disabled on port level". Andrew.