RE: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2021-Oct-27

[Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>]

<snip>
> >
> > > > > There was a comment to remove the TLV length. I will do that
> > > > > next version with implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Identified the following set of work for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Common code at lib/dwa/
> > > > > 2) Marvell DPU based driver at drivers/dwa/cnxk/
> > > > > 3) Test application at app/test-dwa/
> > > > > 4) It is possible to have an SW driver(To allow non-specialized
> > > > > HW to use the
> > > > > framework) for this by:
> > > > > a) Emulate DWA HW as a separate DPDK process
> > > > > b) Add drivers/dwa/sw/ and use memif driver so to create a
> > > > > communication channel between emulated DWA HW process and
> DPDK
> > > application.
> > > > Why use memif driver? Why not ring-pmd?
> > >
> > > Planning to emulation DWA accelerator functional model as a separate
> > > DPDK process in SW case.
> > You mean the primary and secondary processes correct?
> 
> Primary and Primary. (DWA emulation as a separate primary process to mimic
> the real-world scenario)
> 
> >
> > > Therefore memif is the ideal choice as it supports zero-copy of the
> > > data as well.
> > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/memif.html
> > Zero-copy in memif is nothing but exchanging pointers to shared data.
> > The rings work across the primary and secondary processes and are always
> zero-copy.
> > We are doing some perf comparisons between memif and rings, will let you
> know once we have the data.
> 
> Ok.
> I think between primary to primary memif will be required.
Agree, memif is easier/required between primary to primary. But, using it with zero-copy would need additional code on the application part in this scenario. The memory being shared needs to be mapped in both the processes.

> 
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > c) Add drivers/dwa/sw/profiles//l3fwd - To implement l3fwd
> > > > > profile using DPDK libraries for SW driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, Item (4) aka SW drivers as useful(We don't need to
> > > > > implement for all profiles, I think, just for  l3fwd it make
> > > > > sense to add, to allow to use of the framework in just SW mode).
> > > > > Is there any opinion on adding item (4) in DPDK? I saw mixed
> > > > > opinions earlier on this. I would like to understand, Is there
> > > > > any objection to doing
> > > > > item(4) in DPDK as it needs a good amount of work and  I don't
> > > > > want to do throw it away if the community doesn't like this.
> > > > > Any opinion?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>