From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db5eur01on0064.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.2.64]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC6B1B7C4 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 02:26:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Mellanox.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=8klrqBzZulx5PUJtTFZwkgjINfMWmW5U7gRlxHsheic=; b=Qau41kzcyuH2BZ6rxesc+FOWZc0XD1eZJqETSUziw01IzzCBlzhL+hPg4gjBi7h9ZbkStj2KUh7iYCTtFHDph4MymQdyltuzmZlXKk3DNCzIlE30UV1cHzwQke4f1Pm4ccF/rgmuv2pg2iX5teXmLw6De1nSkHTODgtO3jLncvk= Received: from VI1PR0501MB2045.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.195.147) by VI1PR0501MB2862.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.172.12.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.631.10; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 00:25:57 +0000 Received: from VI1PR0501MB2045.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::214f:1028:549a:3cab]) by VI1PR0501MB2045.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::214f:1028:549a:3cab%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0631.013; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 00:25:57 +0000 From: Yongseok Koh To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , Wenzhuo Lu , Konstantin Ananyev , Beilei Xing , Qi Zhang , Jingjing Wu , Adrien Mazarguil , =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio_Laranjeiro?= , Shahaf Shuler , "Tomasz Duszynski" , Jianbo Liu , "Alejandro Lucero" , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , "Harish Patil" , Rasesh Mody , "Andrew Rybchenko" , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , Allain Legacy , Bruce Richardson , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz Thread-Topic: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Thread-Index: AQHTyC3CPZaqQ11dPEOe8BwnqicmnqPvxqGA Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 00:25:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=yskoh@mellanox.com; x-originating-ip: [209.116.155.178] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR0501MB2862; 7:mtMDAueWMzUrAONzkaNpLnKxyqSZ542/vwZjx7aCK0ShAsz/m+CCsOx2c07/ErklbNT9jNC4o9XsJPhzF9YgDH8emDk5iCRGDPoIcZinPnOaxR3vbMwuI1nhsgoOFjXmWMBmzB4HdOytGCgCqzFvqDlIjOOPbM+joE4RejM17foriCnmShgkLLynVMQJo/FpetK5dSUjwm7C+04XC421z3yzfW9VisSVHzl8K7JDvPbyMpqoF9mZ3EBEOjs4Xk2s x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5e1ce3ea-5f0d-473a-7a14-08d599c2a2be x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR0501MB2862; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR0501MB2862: x-ld-processed: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(189930954265078)(45079756050767); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231221)(944501327)(52105095)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:VI1PR0501MB2862; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR0501MB2862; x-forefront-prvs: 0632519F33 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(39380400002)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(3846002)(6116002)(6246003)(97736004)(26005)(2906002)(54906003)(36756003)(446003)(45080400002)(478600001)(66066001)(11346002)(476003)(7416002)(5660300001)(966005)(14454004)(2616005)(486006)(2900100001)(6512007)(6306002)(99286004)(3280700002)(7736002)(305945005)(105586002)(3660700001)(186003)(83716003)(6916009)(6436002)(76176011)(6486002)(59450400001)(68736007)(8936002)(6506007)(316002)(25786009)(106356001)(86362001)(8676002)(33656002)(53546011)(102836004)(82746002)(5250100002)(53936002)(8656006)(39060400002)(561944003)(229853002)(81166006)(4326008)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR0501MB2862; H:VI1PR0501MB2045.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: mellanox.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: sELEcj3+ZZyUYoBOTmE6v/y6vwU+ATcDakPj7lIbed7g2DqJqooMAVJVMz7YaeVjNcIzcDdV8zzb+WMz7iOimfQceD/P7f9HW3XfUeAH3Mr1KDKl+4lMlJ0Iv63sdOkImBZjS+RmWnxuYRP4/7ya7gKheJmb7kSyZLpVrhf6FAXcwKddvKw5Sc98WMhtbIMRZN9xnYa5KBLRz72n/CZ318HKJZ/yJsLhcl/k72UKUFCIua8M4tdmvnVwmfEIWpmuUO4eet31ooOpWd3dIEiWJAYP74NFjAeGvcJoVYQPisnEh0nKM1EE8D6b5maN0MOxWMl0ag80Bp3D3lXGGdVFhNHOybM4vslWwbqxhAh3hJC5oVSS0NnEOdbOLbVJcNbXvAoWEt/CK2kSmRdOrI2Phl8FK1eFj+HJ1bB83rbell8= spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Mellanox.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5e1ce3ea-5f0d-473a-7a14-08d599c2a2be X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Apr 2018 00:25:57.4015 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR0501MB2862 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:26:02 -0000 > On Mar 30, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >=20 > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." >=20 > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags > in rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, > when calling respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each queue. >=20 > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not > repeated in queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdpdk= .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2018-March%2F094023.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cysko= h%40mellanox.com%7Cb2ae36d768424c9e616308d59644e2a7%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d= 149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636580144979633174&sdata=3DpGxkC6H78h%2BaSVOYRjMguOu%= 2B1xIrzW7YbCfohmE8uvs%3D&reserved=3D0 >=20 > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port > offloads in queue offloads: > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdpdk= .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2018-March%2F092978.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cysko= h%40mellanox.com%7Cb2ae36d768424c9e616308d59644e2a7%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d= 149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636580144979633174&sdata=3DMrHYsw6MRliU1IfBulcNxvKNX1= JNrOrcs1NVIuK72ec%3D&reserved=3D0 >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? yes >=20 >=20 > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation > and remove the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs > switched to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, > the sonner it is fixed, the better. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? yes >=20 >=20 > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? yes >=20 >=20 > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, > i.e. every queue capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level > only if it can be applied to a specific queue. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? yes Thanks, Yongseok