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 2B474A10DA for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:26:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717E61BFE0; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr50070.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.5.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613C31BF0E for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:26:34 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=d3DwM4TuqRu7AUvRp4hFUhYkiyorS1kA2UtvozkY2RZMAAT5CY8o1Uy+H5gJEmBUpduEolLyht499U9tnAuKhpyGKn2qzaN3HNrNJvIqsGwTsTH5NvQimMD/SyYLCsdy8OQp9hTmBFibP8NbzRlKBZyfL7HgNce1cxa2ZM+/NaWIrJ4/Raxo+78Z3lm97kJegepTB7DdF7vnSBiWoCIWC/7W1uKNEHMNtiNx2bF2yhSxyERebPcr9sCwER6iQYsn3ukC+r77CRmneDpmeOzOxjthUaq+kErHeaAyVpkc7MvGyTHzlM7xDqIeBRIx0m7Op+S+S31EuaQ2xPKNIta8uA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tiepgHz0OreSfTR8+rTenUk0+AUPPtLowFSm1g5CTCY=; b=OB0gjrPsFs78C+sXn0GF5KBmhB3gYKHxtlz7cjoAnPBT8deIEaniMrJYVKRMbTDhfRtlX4pfdhRIg2A8fH1q2Iqdm0WP0jymLvzs4k0tWred0Keq+H0w2hVS+JLGmRcxb/RHSBhcoNDocBHW7s11rkrJuJ+sdLdqbVdDU0d/OjP0vT/Yq1mcBbmOPfWmMu+wyghDgA+ri0CV2lsNGtJZB7bLH9oSTzb/RTSTzRt3+AwzNVnDIVCqKCSiFvdqloWCBDj6LLOlgDnJl7S7WA8bl5SPKsIA+d0bZY+L9GbpjGSNOCARK4hQOeEk8o1Dko1UPXQ4Mu4X7DQetrb6LQX9Ig== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nxp.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nxp.com;dkim=pass header.d=nxp.com;arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tiepgHz0OreSfTR8+rTenUk0+AUPPtLowFSm1g5CTCY=; b=Xf/7SVp6RjrXBAydMeipJ1Sab6176FF+hqEQapcb2G8Prm4VWStXb0NnJOshye2M/PImXovcqymmxljxrUI2TaZGlL8tiOSdsQVrzFWyerVuperSXsr3Xd8op82oyDxvPp4TPvZKv63UH/ZODP9V7D7+JdgRwlUkBaO3pd1Juv4= Received: from VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.179.235.82) by VE1PR04MB6415.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.179.232.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2115.15; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:26:33 +0000 Received: from VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::964:4ddc:346b:e2ec]) by VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::964:4ddc:346b:e2ec%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2115.005; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:26:33 +0000 From: Akhil Goyal To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon CC: "Iremonger, Bernard" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Anoob Joseph , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path in ipsec-secgw Thread-Index: AQHVRitzwTpsrZhZLECEWe3JhP6PuqbiqGgwgAAWsgCAAAED4IAAC4QAgAAOSbCAAAM9gIAAAOwQgAAHK4CAABdmoIABigGAgAAPnaA= Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:26:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1562835937-24141-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <2417926.RaMoeEf8dU@xps> <2658214.f7z3ihukRQ@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5F46A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A6002C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A6002C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=akhil.goyal@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [92.120.1.65] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: edeacd38-e364-46fa-fea1-08d715a9f0dd x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VE1PR04MB6415; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1PR04MB6415: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 011579F31F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(76176011)(66476007)(66446008)(76116006)(52536014)(5660300002)(66556008)(476003)(33656002)(8936002)(186003)(256004)(11346002)(53936002)(7736002)(81156014)(81166006)(14444005)(66946007)(44832011)(68736007)(74316002)(2906002)(486006)(9686003)(8676002)(229853002)(305945005)(55016002)(7696005)(3846002)(71190400001)(26005)(99286004)(6506007)(6116002)(64756008)(478600001)(446003)(316002)(110136005)(14454004)(54906003)(71200400001)(102836004)(6436002)(66066001)(6246003)(4326008)(86362001)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VE1PR04MB6415; H:VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: vcsZkV+4Y6IhbFGZChoYD6mz+dCa1smqLQQ82p3820RLn+/s97tzBvJBPgXqs9f+u21x86lCyNt+6H/4QyOq+4ZMG2AKDp0ci9lYtxy/t3FAGMhX14WyVjweOxmdUNq+ApOJmOa6KrWzIuL96oyVdfuTqVZmjq4tAEHfGXEOeD52A/pxI851DtXdP6Fq/YAxIiW85P6pbg0iD/xk5V/g+KWIK/XEHkIebjRyj0+EMuy1IVCU8Y3ac728dU9j17OLocfEZC7RIYh3nIdC0sYvVACj+cnXssRpoKdseQZQLoUwT15VuQDYJZOMsMJCjTo+8DcyZGzvhHa0CM1xbszmMy19gP1XIWX1yjcf2Kk+x358qXzMqweDWKmhMop6Fo/qtgSwP1A2sAqyopcGseGLttyrz5hMyrsat3vumD9y7b8= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: edeacd38-e364-46fa-fea1-08d715a9f0dd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Jul 2019 11:26:32.9991 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: akhil.goyal@nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1PR04MB6415 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path in ipsec-secgw 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" Hi Konstantin, >=20 > Hi Akhil, >=20 > > > > > > > > > > 30/07/2019 10:48, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > > 30/07/2019 09:20, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > > > > 30/07/2019 07:55, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the functionality of the legacy code path i= n now > available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the librte_ipsec library. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is planned to deprecate the legacy code path= in the > 19.11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release and remove the legacy code path in the = 20.02 > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Anoob Joseph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied to dpdk-next-crypto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we have a deprecation notice for some code pat= h in > an > > > > > example? > > > > > > > > > > > The deprecation notices are for the API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you can drop the legacy code in 19.11, > > > > > > > > > > > and I don't merge this patch in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are planning to remove the original code and replace= it with > > > IPSec > > > > > > > > > > library APIs which are still experimental. > > > > > > > > > > With this change there won't be any example of the lega= cy ipsec > > > code > > > > > path. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's good to drop old code. > > > > > > > If someone still wants to look at it, it is in old releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applications over DPDK take ipsec-secgw as an example a= nd > IPSec > > > > > > > > > > is a major use case for customers. There may also be > performance > > > > > > > > > > differences in the two code paths. Atleast on NXP platf= orms I > saw > > > > > > > > > > 5-7% drop when the patches were originally submitted. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what is the current state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a different issue you need to solve in the library. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel it is worth notifying the users that the origina= l codepath is > > > > > > > > > > getting deprecated, so that they can plan to move to ne= w IPSec > > > APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope they already planned to move when they saw the new lib= rary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The deprecation notice is not the right place for a chang= e in an > > > example. > > > > > > > > > What change is there in IPsec API? In which release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IPSec lib was introduced in 1902 release and a few enhancem= ents > > > > > > > > are done thereafter. > > > > > > > > Previously all IPSec related stuff was done in the applicat= ion, > > > > > > > > now we have IPSec Lib which perform similar work. > > > > > > > > There are changes both in datapath as well as control path. > > > > > > > > User need to adapt to the recent changes, as we may no long= er > > > > > > > > support/maintain the datapath/control path which was done > previously > > > > > > > > and there may be some conflict. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the real DPDK change is to have a new library in 19.02. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If deprecation notice is not the right place, > > > > > > > > then where should it be notified before actually making the= change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has already been notified in "New Features" of 19.02 > > > > > > > that there is an IPsec library. What do you want to notify mo= re? > > > > > > > Again, the example is not supposed to be a real application. > > > > > > > If you want to maintain an IPsec application with better qual= ity rules, > > > > > > > I suggest to start a new git repository for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK got your point, but in that case, I would say, legacy code s= hall not > be > > > > > removed > > > > > > Until we have the ipsec lib as experimental. > > > > > > User should have both the code paths as long as we have ipsec l= ibrary > > > > > experimental. > > > > > > Not sure why it is needed? > > There is some performance gap. >=20 > Ok, and you think that keeping legacy code-path till 20.02 > will provide enough time to analyze the perf drop for NXP devices? Yes. We cannot commit for 19.11 timeframe to fix the performance issues in the new code. You can send the patches, we can try our best to incorporate = it in 19.11 but we cannot commit at this moment. >=20 > > Original Idea for ipsec lib was to have > > better performing APIs. >=20 > Not only. > Main reasons were to hide from user complexity of IPsec packet processing > and avoid necessity for each user to re-implement it. > Also legacy code doesn't provide many important features > (replay window, ESN, multi-seg support, etc.) >=20 > > How much gain is observed using these APIs on intel? >=20 > It depends. > From my last observations for inline case library code-path is 10-15% > faster than legacy one. Though I think reason for that in not in the libr= ary > itself, but that legacy code handles inline traffic in suboptimal way. > For lookaside - in most cases library and legacy code performance is abou= t the > same, > except the case when we have a burst of packets where each packet belongs= to > different SA. > In that case new code-path is 3-5% slower. > As I understand, main reason is again not the library itself, > but that in new code we try to group packets that belongs > to the same SA both before and after crypto-dev enqueue/dequeue. > Usually that helps, but for that case it just adds extra overhead (no gro= uping is > possible). >=20 > > Do we have data? Atleast on NXP devices, these are not performing bette= r. > > > > > Why DPDK sample app can't use DPDK experimental API as it is, > > > without some alternate code-path? > > > > Sample app can use experimental APIs as is. There is no issue with that= . > > The intent is just to notify the users that it will be removed so that = they > > can be ready for change in their code. >=20 > Ok, but if we don't submit deprecation notice (as Thomas suggested) > how they'll be notified? As Thomas said, there is no need for sending the deprecation notice for app= lication. So I have to hold my comment back. > Would there be a separate RN when we'll remove experimental tag > and legacy code? There will be a RN entry when we remove the experimental tag and the legacy= code. >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's your take. > > > > > When do you plan to remove experimental status of IPsec library? > > > > > > > > > There have been addition of some functionality in this release cycl= e. I > would > > > say we > > > > can wait for 1 release cycle for some fixes or changes which may be > required. > > > > If it looks stable in next release cycle, we can make formal in DPD= K 2002. > > > > > > If we'll leave legacy code in 19.11, does it mean we'll have to > > > support it for next 2 years (LTS cycle)? > > > > The original intent of this patch was also to remove the legacy code in= 2002 > release and > > not in 1911. Moreover, it is the application code that we need to remov= e. We > can get that patch > > backported to the 19.11.1 release as well. Then it would be same. > > >=20 >=20 >=20