From: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
To: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
maxime.coquelin@redhat.com,
David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
Marcin Zapolski <marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] RFC: hiding struct rte_eth_dev
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:19:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <980083c6-130a-9658-f82b-0c9ddc7cc0cc@ashroe.eu> (raw)
Hi folks,
The ABI Stability proposals should be pretty well known at this point.
The latest rev is here ...
http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/1565864619-17206-1-git-send-email-mdr@ashroe.eu/
As has been discussed public data structure's are risky for ABI
stability, as any changes to a data structure can change the ABI. As a
general rule you want to expose as few as possible (ideally none), and
keep them as small as possible.
One of the key data structures in DPDK is `struct rte_eth_dev`. In this
case, rte_eth_dev is exposed public-ally, as a side-effect of the
inlining of the [rx,tx]_burst functions.
Marcin Zapolski has been looking at what to do about it, with no current
consensus on a path forward. The options on our table is:-
1. Do nothing, live with the risk to DPDK v20 ABI stability.
2. Pad rte_eth_dev, add some extra bytes to the structure "in case" we
need to add a field during the v20 ABI (through to 20.11).
3. Break rte_eth_dev into public and private structs.
- See
http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20190906131813.1343-1-marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com/
- This ends up quiet an invasive patch, late in the cycle, however it
does have no performance penalty.
4. Uninline [rx,tx]_burst functions
- See
http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20190730124950.1293-1-marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com/
- This has a performance penalty of ~2% with testpmd, impact on a "real
workload" is likely to be in the noise.
We need to agree an approach for v19.11, and that may be we agree to do
nothing. My personal vote is 4. as the simplest with minimal impact.
Thanks,
Ray K
next reply other threads:[~2019-09-23 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-23 16:19 Ray Kinsella [this message]
2019-09-23 16:35 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-09-24 9:07 ` Morten Brørup
2019-09-24 16:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-09-24 16:50 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-09-26 11:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-09-26 11:50 ` David Marchand
2019-09-26 11:52 ` David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=980083c6-130a-9658-f82b-0c9ddc7cc0cc@ashroe.eu \
--to=mdr@ashroe.eu \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=marcinx.a.zapolski@intel.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).