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 8E393A04F3; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:49:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E071BF95; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:49:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f54.google.com (mail-io1-f54.google.com [209.85.166.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FEC1BF7B for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:49:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f54.google.com with SMTP id c16so6278794ioh.6 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:49:08 -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=Y0RsXkIHNmnF98WkYvBv6SKinl3Xf5grdT4yuTYjSNI=; b=Lddbiyp7pIJyUZPgKx3LaIlWup9nK2olYs5/XxZlEC3eTR43G+7gvp5YKdy4DFyNsW 36wNtRk0k+leDhIzSrfcUmKCITxjnQC/2Uxjui6emQ4caaYj1vVFc7iUzkz8pX9YlgMm xYU93kPGjSR7Fr4UrpQiWXdcX6UBpkUIya5RSb5Alk90bTlwz2h71YvqKJP+cIqk989e NE3K9hnoziPqsd6LzmSHNJa/BIAUmY3gNeJC7rqzpyFOw/6pjqma3XLxdYnSs0kmTQ3S uOOWWMfcXKi0erJ0PbKzbfWRMipMFdHLbeyiK/rKrBsLNos/JQH5j1ZcXOiyqvlkLdbf miMw== 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=Y0RsXkIHNmnF98WkYvBv6SKinl3Xf5grdT4yuTYjSNI=; b=qBQVSg4596WxN1pZcIv2XtgK8b5mjcL8pK5VHxnsOb9awUfCpilIj1Gwv4XiTCqJMU +yrkGXYFX5VwiC0oxVOFBc/SxK+kMRP3Ac1Eicc7olcwfaepzX4ovjgXXH19a5fN0bnl 483x6uRg87yQIi0gxSF6Rvbpwsb01Bhv3doMxXF//JJZvOnyF8Spmi2dQ5gpRV6gFKgo jw8CsVtQCA1uq3nDFZmF3zfE+mg7XfmHStZXMyjkwFT6qQGkbvpEleHIcEHMaeZNIC2V J4Qis8gYSmSQbETvybM0+AWKUN2Ger5iHtba3yPAVgTg4m7OyCiSmH2SRgRLgwutXzYx wnFA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUGEgBGwKe0qUdpKX4Xm9JX0UUXR8qkVipvR2tsSnCLMPTcz4zf A6+STNVuWUXgJdozHiaH4ej0ei/gG/8OhWC7vbY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFym6M/Sj7l6oGgEu/hLjqJLXnCwUXvaFMVd62sKg35qtJKZOmrIy1lSIhmX4el1tix3bac5HFsxUi03+R01A= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8056:: with SMTP id b22mr8843313ior.60.1575614946507; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:49:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:18:50 +0530 Message-ID: To: Venky Venkatesh Cc: dpdk-dev , mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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" + DSW maintainer On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:57 AM 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? > 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) > 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? > > Thanks > > -Venky