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 5AE69A04C1; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:43:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB982952; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:43:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f196.google.com (mail-il1-f196.google.com [209.85.166.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7D0235 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:43:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z12so270435iln.11 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 01:43:07 -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=XHvY4v4It+J6VOAfpMOE9OGgpC7yW/yz6adt6HI2gcg=; b=kyyXVRFEKBLGneoID7J8DjQMyzMOrk8OHg11ngOpc+5ITo8LZb5dbDRZmOCMlD2LZu gOtKsax5gL+osngwPa/sqBGH5rbHLSVPCwBS0er33k7u/0w9EYgs1XywptgNU1/E3uws eczmL7cU6iPT41nI9ajFUV6nZTgrZPwEfFru7E1M6C/pZYd60tEdYV9oqLinrhQjSNqk BPDWU60ju/Tv3nZs+4hhLhZJie4a1t3nWo9xv+IqS6uzqa3VhyrtPLmeP6/iDugt+5BW laj3wT93ETmYZZFgZNEkzBRp1y2XrP5SXvtfHNPWauE2bEg2nOyK+GPeAIMRl/RB8lvS 7DNg== 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=XHvY4v4It+J6VOAfpMOE9OGgpC7yW/yz6adt6HI2gcg=; b=mkbSLyZFp7HdSGDqMMUj3adq3mMzqu7wnqqsNktCySGwAzVzFlSa8GQkE99ai1Kaoz KWhhXdFb5Pd5YLLru7nyN6/OLAS5TnxP3lZUEGjppRjaOPfIqPnlJgiO5jiIKWx5Gbw+ urk0m1FECG1nxoDf/6YWYDGEZ30vr8MejO4zJ8xuLxCo9FMaQ8ljYMlXXhniclxzeJ2y DLvpJA4J5fY99Nn2GXGxeWwAdvmN4Ro/pnjL6Wn7FQHf4CCsryRYyLCxBjnkjAdVXeFk GXjP/lEPQr+kHTJ81URNu2ZWdmuw5SVzCDHSqRiU78j1iM+OTKEEIQTtWu0bc14BmCp6 dm0g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUcBGWl8GbU4uDgpnkfc0HcD7TZ8uHMAO+C7uTRX/hQtpdR6otu ZxQo9cQyGrBaD/qadXNsCnG4l9b4dvaW+lW9aKA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzz7NigFqqUC0zmMoita1/rnt6lYrEOazA63b7nJsBYHrxs05kwv7ydASPCvXYWeVitNhYCYoacMMr+h8CLzEE= X-Received: by 2002:a92:4b07:: with SMTP id m7mr21839464ilg.271.1574502186756; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 01:43:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1574165145-23960-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <2061551.U1huFxGPsU@xps> <5aa70bf7-9afd-4c5d-708c-c922288755e8@solarflare.com> <4645183.OkDat4SStM@xps> In-Reply-To: <4645183.OkDat4SStM@xps> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:42:50 +0900 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Ferruh Yigit , Pavan Nikhilesh , Neil Horman , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dpdk-dev , Ori Kam , David Marchand , Olivier Matz , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] ethdev: improve flow mark Rx offload deprecation notice 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, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:58 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 22/11/2019 12:53, Andrew Rybchenko: > > 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 [1] 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. > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-November/150793.html > > > 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 > > why the problem cannot be solved using existing types of controls > > (e.g. offloads). > > The offload control is used as an effective configuration for now. > The features which are configured with DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_* > do not need any other API to be used. > Extending DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_* bits for enabling features which > must be configured via other API anyway, is possible. > The real problem is that features in DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_* are supposed > to be disabled by default. If we add some opt-in features here, > we cannot enable them by default for API compatibility and do the > right thing by default. > > Choosing DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_* bits or rte_eth_dev_opt* functions is a detail. > The real decision is to change the API for using all these features. > Can we keep all features available by default (opt-out)? IMO, *rte_eth_dev_opt* has following problems 1) It is not multi-process friendly. If we are changing the Rx/Tx function pointer, based on the selected offload, then, using *rte_eth_dev_opt* scheme won't really work(if the new API called after the secondary process launch) 2) If we are taking rte_eth_dev_opt path then by default feature has to be enabled to not break the functional ABI. That scheme won't scale if as when we keep adding the new features. It is always easy for the application to define "what it wants" vs "what it does not want" 3) Defining the device state after the reconfigure operation. IMO, if any operation is connected to fastpath it is better to use DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_ like this feature where enable or disable PMDs from updating ``rte_mbuf::hash::fdir`` so that if possible we can use different Rx function pointer if possible(Hence it can work with the multi-process case case)