From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFEEA04F3; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE2B1BF7B; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0E9378E for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CCF4000A for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004) id D2C2F4000C; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:25 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on bernadotte.lysator.liu.se X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BITCOIN_SPAM_02, PDS_BTC_ID autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 Received: from [192.168.1.59] (host-95-205-107-14.mobileonline.telia.com [95.205.107.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10AFB4000A; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:22 +0100 (CET) To: Venky Venkatesh , dev@dpdk.org References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= Message-ID: <9e58e2a0-0a6a-4dec-ffe7-e9ea7cf33099@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:34:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] eventdev DSW question 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 2019-12-06 01:26, Venky Venkatesh wrote: > I see that the provision in 18.11 eventdev DSW for maximum number of queues > is > > #define DSW_MAX_QUEUES (16) > > > > 1. If the number of queues needed is to be increased to 7 bits (i.e. > 128) is there any issue (correctness, scale, performance) other than > increased data structure size? No. > 2. I see that it is only used in the following structs: > - struct dsw_evdev: struct dsw_queue queues[DSW_MAX_QUEUES]; > sizeof(struct dsw_queue) ~ DSW_MAX_FLOWS. So the total increase > contribution here is (128-16)*DSW_MAX_FLOWS from about 0.5MB to 4MB > - struct dsw_port: uint64_t queue_enqueued[DSW_MAX_QUEUES], > queue_dequeued[DSW_MAX_QUEUES]; > This increase is negligible (a few KB at most across all dsw_ports) On x86_64, the size of the dsw_evdev-struct is increased by ~32 kB per queue added. > 3. So is it enough if I changed the above define? (In other words I hope > there are no other hidden/implicit dependencies on the current value 16 > elsewhere in the code). Also I suppose the only way is to directly change > this in the code, rite? > Yes, and yes. The original reason for having that define was that I thought 16 queues would be enough for anyone. As so many in the past that has utter such statements, I might well have been wrong. /M