From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8641B052 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:23:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2018 10:23:21 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,396,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="28956464" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2018 10:23:21 -0700 Received: from shsmsx152.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.52) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:23:21 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.235]) by SHSMSX152.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.129]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 01:23:19 +0800 From: "Wu, Jingjing" To: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , Adrien Mazarguil , Nelio Laranjeiro , Yongseok Koh , Shahaf Shuler , Tomasz Duszynski , Jianbo Liu , Alejandro Lucero , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , "Harish Patil" , Rasesh Mody , Andrew Rybchenko , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz Thread-Topic: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Thread-Index: AQHTyC3I8HHie0rQSEWKkeOfSLICw6PtvZUw Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810FCFEB0@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYWJiNmFmZjMtMjhkNC00OTVlLTk2YTgtZTljYTdkNjA2Y2RiIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6ImNUNGhzY1FzOVRxXC8yNDdxbURHT0VBZWxcL3NUOXBxUE4zbTloR0FpMVBobz0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:23:23 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:48 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde ; Jerin Jacob > ; Shijith Thotton ; > Santosh Shukla ; Rahul Lakkireddy > ; John Daley ; Lu, Wenz= huo > ; Ananyev, Konstantin ; Xing, > Beilei ; Zhang, Qi Z ; Wu, J= ingjing > ; Adrien Mazarguil ; N= elio > Laranjeiro ; Yongseok Koh ; > Shahaf Shuler ; Tomasz Duszynski = ; Jianbo > Liu ; Alejandro Lucero ; > Hemant Agrawal ; Shreyansh Jain > ; Harish Patil ; Rasesh = Mody > ; Andrew Rybchenko ; > Shrikrishna Khare ; Maxime Coquelin > ; Legacy, Allain (Wind River) > ; Richardson, Bruce ; > Gaetan Rivet ; Olivier Matz > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API >=20 > 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." >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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 >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? Yes. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? Yes >=20 > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes =20 Thanks Jingjing > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) > Thank you >=20