From: Jerin Jacob <email@example.com> To: Andrew Rybchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>, Ferruh Yigit <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Pavan Nikhilesh <email@example.com>, Neil Horman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John McNamara <email@example.com>, Marko Kovacevic <firstname.lastname@example.org>, dpdk-dev <email@example.com>, Ori Kam <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Marchand <email@example.com>, Olivier Matz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] ethdev: improve flow mark Rx offload deprecation notice Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:32:21 +0900 Message-ID: <CALBAE1MD7U6Xs+8k8kQTepNM7=UXXiRk97Yg8TttgDn7bB=h-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:54 PM Andrew Rybchenko <email@example.com> wrote: > > On 11/22/19 2:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 22/11/2019 11:12, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> On 11/22/19 1:01 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 19/11/2019 13:12, Andrew Rybchenko: > >>>> The deprecation notice is required since it adds more requirements > >>>> when RTE flow mark and flag actions may be used and require > >>>> changes in applications. > >>> I am still not sure what is the best solution here. > >>> I continued to think about it in this thread: > >>> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-November/151960.html > >>> > >>> I think we cannot require any application change until 20.11 > >>> in order to keep API (and behaviour) compatibility. > >> Expected, but still very disappointing. > >> > >> The feature is implemented by Pavan (@ Marvell), supported by me, > >> used by Qi (@ Intel), looks better than alternatives from application > >> developer point of view  and finally postponed for 1 year without really > >> strong motivation. > > I see different valuable point of views. This is enough motivation. > > It looks like I miss it in previous discussion, I would be thankful if > you give me links to read or hints how to find. > > > And no, it is not postponed by one year. > > Next release can implement a new API. > > > >> I disagree that it is tightly related to moving > >> mark/flag to > >> dynamic field/flag and absolutely blocked by it. Yes, I know that the are > >> concerns from the very beginning, but the problem is explained  and clear > >> and no full-featured alternative solution is suggested. Solution suggested > >> by Ori has many significant drawbacks as explained in  and highlighted > >> in further discussion. > > I disagree with working only on mark action while there are a lot > > of other configs which have to be implemented in drivers. > > > > The reality is that some drivers decided to have some "optimizations" > > disabling some features, and you want the application to opt-in > > in order to allow your optimized paths. > > Strictly speaking it is not about driver optimized paths only, but HW > configuration as well which can be done on start-up only (not dynamic) and > could be per-queue in fact. > > > Note that opt-in is different of really enabling an offload. > > For some basic port-level features like RSS hash, > > it is enabled with an offload flag before starting the port, > > acting as an opt-in. > > Could you highlight the difference between opt-in and offload. > What is the key difference which makes one solution better > than another? Why different mechanism is required? > > > Some features have some dedicated API, which may be enabled after > > starting the port, and no way to opt-in (or opt-out) before start. > > It sounds like you have examples in your mind. Please, share. > > > A lot of features are using rte_flow API which is in this situation. > > If we take the opt-in path, let's not do it only for the mark action, > > but let's create a real API for it: > > rte_eth_dev_optin() > > rte_eth_dev_optinall() > > rte_eth_dev_optoutl() > > Introducing new types of controls would make configuration more and > more complex. I think that many different types of control would > over-complicate it. May be it is unavoidable, but it should be clear I agree with Andrew here. Another thing to consider is the behavior of pre rte_eth_dev_opt*() API after reconfigure. Does application needs to call these API again after the reconfigure to bring back the old state prior to reconfiguring? > why the problem cannot be solved using existing types of controls > (e.g. offloads).
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-11-19 12:05 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: remove deprecation notice for packet type set Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 12:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] ethdev: remove deprecation notice about RSS hash offload Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 12:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] ethdev: improve flow mark Rx offload deprecation notice Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 12:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: remove deprecation notice for packet type set Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 12:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] ethdev: remove deprecation notice about RSS hash offload Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 15:04 ` Ferruh Yigit 2019-11-25 16:38 ` Ferruh Yigit 2019-11-19 12:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] ethdev: improve flow mark Rx offload deprecation notice Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-21 22:01 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-11-22 10:12 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-22 11:15 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-11-22 11:53 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-22 13:32 ` Jerin Jacob [this message] 2019-11-22 18:58 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-11-23 9:42 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-11-23 18:12 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-11-25 10:44 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-11-25 11:39 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-12-02 4:21 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-12-02 9:15 ` Thomas Monjalon 2019-12-02 11:09 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-12-02 11:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2019-12-05 8:12 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-12-09 9:17 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2019-12-16 7:38 ` Jerin Jacob 2019-12-16 10:02 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2019-11-19 15:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: remove deprecation notice for packet type set Ferruh Yigit 2019-11-25 16:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions: You may reply publically 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='CALBAE1MD7U6Xs+8k8kQTepNM7=UXXiRk97Yg8TttgDn7bB=h-A@mail.gmail.com' \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /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
DPDK patches and discussions Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \ email@example.com public-inbox-index dev Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox