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 47F68A0557; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:24:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D02A397D; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:24:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com (mail-io1-f66.google.com [209.85.166.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B921E1BFBE; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:24:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id h8so5237806iob.2; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 02:24:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TDQbTUPk1X1vMwLhTTlSLNTfc+iFOzP/ZnezYfhuEMs=; b=XdTC5J29ukSsRk786VX8Z/+YkFfzc3Rlgy3pDNsFp63Xfd9CSZJSFn7fmpoVYGPQZ2 j0YOhYFTwbSffkCYMCcTVFhlmdxZT/W1Pkrw8XH8pC5M6bqZeWME4VL7K/cgtkS80De9 439XbNI9DrPTObcGfcjM2G2nCar73vOvQbUwQnq2HbRd0dhfig/MrbQvT2ECLEAIVo/i CkKJ8KVT60eJ2B5NmrFJFZwB0ceSj10i4JyTWa/RHcYaLk2AbuiQTp6bfLtM1Prt+IjZ 4zwpWEBHJqjOuRNJtyfK+cDS1AbytO/gwRyq/iL61wz/fxE/DnqTLEss7QN+By2ZbdRK QdKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TDQbTUPk1X1vMwLhTTlSLNTfc+iFOzP/ZnezYfhuEMs=; b=kDGoZB0xjtg098+zRaMtNKSXiTOIeKfOpl7XzgG8uAAA9tLn02NIAlfFn1x4CB6qYM VvppxS94651orRgZCV3gwV3+whevFCbXPDDAjyLmNxl4Df08GxtzVDgLIRi+/IOuuvA1 QWPOwwgQkhGxcsqcbLZ2BbBgEJRJFqssQQAhxuLgzZAjowMzlw1rU06rQ3l4LRA/3lUP y4hH3AvldFz/kgI2Ktts93BNVc4rzQgwCRDaAJN847B4if9QPrWbliH+hdx9fxAx3Kzs LVbth2gh7+4aVZIizvu2UF1sk8UpeK+gDXeYUxfPtJWAq4VCzlQQ4UoWd7eBk+WaleWC Y6Mw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAULmLUUvrK2jNSurFDOwbngqUqhggmULh9EjO14PwIXKI6I/NX6 YCe2gv3+VZmcAXzxFozCD5jbnf+kNibYPfRqfWk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDDptMb3jRO0kWoW8kjIfTQZnpycW9ulIyPFCgRlNG4/XPZmqx2e51E5R+RalnCiO7jzakSDVH2qRzrCUcmwk= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8516:: with SMTP id i22mr36494705ioj.130.1582367085835; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 02:24:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200131170201.3236153-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <2267983.jE0xQCEvom@xps> <2469664.Isy0gbHreE@xps> In-Reply-To: <2469664.Isy0gbHreE@xps> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:54:29 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Jerin Jacob , Ray Kinsella , dpdk-dev , Prasun Kapoor , Nithin Dabilpuram , Kiran Kumar K , Pavan Nikhilesh , Narayana Prasad , nsaxena@marvell.com, sshankarnara@marvell.com, Honnappa Nagarahalli , David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Ajit Khaparde , "Ye, Xiaolong" , Raslan Darawsheh , Maxime Coquelin , Akhil Goyal , Cristian Dumitrescu , John McNamara , "Richardson, Bruce" , Anatoly Burakov , Gavin Hu , David Christensen , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Pallavi Kadam , Olivier Matz , Gage Eads , "Rao, Nikhil" , Erik Gabriel Carrillo , Hemant Agrawal , "Artem V. Andreev" , Stephen Hemminger , Shahaf Shuler , "Wiles, Keith" , =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , Jasvinder Singh , Vladimir Medvedkin , techboard@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger , dave@barachs.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/5] graph: introduce graph subsystem 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 Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 3:23 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 22/02/2020 10:05, Jerin Jacob: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:44 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 21/02/2020 16:56, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:40 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 21/02/2020 11:30, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > If we add rte_graph to DPDK, we will have 2 similar libraries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I already proposed several times to move rte_pipeline in a separate > > > > > > > > repository for two reasons: > > > > > > > > 1/ it is acting at a higher API layer level > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to define what is the higher layer API. Is it processing beyond L2? > > > > > > > > > > My opinion is that any API which is implemented differently > > > > > for different hardware should be in DPDK. > > > > > > > > We need to define SIMD optimization(not HW specific to but > > > > architecture-specific) > > > > treatment as well, as the graph and node library will have SIMD > > > > optimization as well. > > > > > > I think SIMD optimization is generic to any performance-related project, > > > not specific to DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > In general, by the above policy enforced, we need to split DPDK like below, > > > > dpdk.git > > > > ---------- > > > > librte_compressdev > > > > librte_bbdev > > > > librte_eventdev > > > > librte_pci > > > > librte_rawdev > > > > librte_eal > > > > librte_security > > > > librte_mempool > > > > librte_mbuf > > > > librte_cryptodev > > > > librte_ethdev > > > > > > > > other repo(s). > > > > ---------------- > > > > librte_cmdline > > > > librte_cfgfile > > > > librte_bitratestats > > > > librte_efd > > > > librte_latencystats > > > > librte_kvargs > > > > librte_jobstats > > > > librte_gso > > > > librte_gro > > > > librte_flow_classify > > > > librte_pipeline > > > > librte_net > > > > librte_metrics > > > > librte_meter > > > > librte_member > > > > librte_table > > > > librte_stack > > > > librte_sched > > > > librte_rib > > > > librte_reorder > > > > librte_rcu > > > > librte_power > > > > librte_distributor > > > > librte_bpf > > > > librte_ip_frag > > > > librte_hash > > > > librte_fib > > > > librte_timer > > > > librte_telemetry > > > > librte_port > > > > librte_pdump > > > > librte_kni > > > > librte_acl > > > > librte_vhost > > > > librte_ring > > > > librte_lpm > > > > librte_ipsec > > > > > > I think it is a fair conclusion of the scope I am arguing, yes. > > > > OK. See below. > > > > > > > What is expected to be maintained, tested, etc. > > > > > > > > We need to maintain and test other code in OTHER dpdk repo as well. > > > > > > Yes but the ones responsible are not the same. > > > > I see your point. Can I interpret it as you would like to NOT take > > responsibility > > of SW libraries(Items enumerated in the second list)? > > It's not only about me. This is a community decision. OK. Let wait for community feedback. Probably we discuss more in public TB meeting in 26th Feb. > > > > I think, the main question would be, how it will deliver to distros > > and/or end-users > > and what will be part of the dpdk release? > > > > I can think of two options. Maybe distro folks have better view on this. > > > > options 1: > > - Split dpdk to dpdk-core.git, dpdk-algo.git etc based on the > > functionalities and maintainer's availability. > > - Follow existing release cadence and deliver single release tarball > > with content from the above repos. > > > > options 2: > > - Introduce more subtrees(dpdk-next-algo.git etc) based on the > > functionalities and maintainer's availability. > > - Follow existing release cadence and have a pull request to main > > dpdk.git just like Linux kernel or existing scheme of things. > > > > I am for option 2. > > > > NOTE: This new graph and node library, I would like to make its new > > subtree in the existing scheme of > > things so that it will NOT be a burden for you to manage. > > The option 2 is to make maintainers life easier. > Keeping all libraries in the same repository allows to have > an unique release and a central place for the apps and docs. > > The option 1 may make contributors life easier if we consider > adding new libraries can make contributions harder in case of dependencies. > The option 1 makes also repositories smaller, so maybe easier to approach. > It makes easier to fully validate testing and quality of a repository. > Having separate packages makes easier to select what is distributed and supported. If the final dpdk release tarball looks same for option1 and option2 then I think, option 1 is overhead to manage intra repo dependency. I agree with Thomas, it is better to decide as a community what direction we need to take and align existing and new libraries with that scheme. > > After years thinking about the scope of DPDK repository, > I am still not sure which solution is best. > I really would like to see more opinions, thanks. Yes. > >