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 7797DA04C7; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048A02BAB; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B6EE07 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:01:58 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: E33gC1uB9AeISOwkKnbM97tjZLY/pfwJd8QSF9huuxAWo5m37TJkBOUEzICh3Uvu5zBCs16RVZ LLb8i9jZOzgw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9743"; a="139083620" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,426,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="139083620" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2020 06:01:26 -0700 IronPort-SDR: y2b9sHlyCbz1lcfDqmuVFqpoE4CPRhqNHjhacL/LarEuexufYYpvuHt8kVK9ViVvmeKc3J9x5O 9PQMR9WuyZMQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,426,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="507131601" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.247.225]) ([10.213.247.225]) by fmsmga005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2020 06:01:19 -0700 To: Nithin Dabilpuram Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob , Luca Boccassi , Nithin Dabilpuram , "Singh, Jasvinder" , Andrew Rybchenko , "dev@dpdk.org" , "kkanas@marvell.com" , "Kinsella, Ray" , Neil Horman , Kevin Traynor , David Marchand References: <20200330160019.29674-1-ndabilpuram@marvell.com> <20200428144535.GC1897@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <19c8b69f68bcdb7ac23126e63456223f7aff0465.camel@debian.org> <1923738.gORTcIGjah@thomas> <20200429090354.GA1903@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <74165680-6b05-a7c3-21a7-c66372b462e4@intel.com> <20200501131634.GA24835@outlook.office365.com> <1a6121c7-58d6-a2e4-e93d-fe50dfd58bb0@intel.com> <20200907111228.GA14807@outlook.office365.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:01:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200907111228.GA14807@outlook.office365.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add tm support for shaper config in pkt mode 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 9/7/2020 12:12 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 5/1/2020 2:16 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: >>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:27:02AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> External Email >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> On 4/29/2020 10:03 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:45:44AM +0100, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:54 PM >>>>>>> To: Jerin Jacob ; Dumitrescu, Cristian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Richardson, Bruce ; Yigit, Ferruh >>>>>>> ; Luca Boccassi ; Nithin >>>>>>> Dabilpuram ; Singh, Jasvinder >>>>>>> ; Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>>> ; dev@dpdk.org; jerinj@marvell.com; >>>>>>> kkanas@marvell.com; Nithin Dabilpuram ; >>>>>>> Kinsella, Ray ; Neil Horman >>>>>>> ; Kevin Traynor ; David >>>>>>> Marchand >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: add tm support for shaper >>>>>>> config in pkt mode >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 28/04/2020 17:04, Luca Boccassi: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 15:45 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:59 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Ferruh Yigit >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 5:29 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:42 PM Ferruh Yigit >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2020 10:19 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2020 11:28 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Nithin Dabilpuram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch also updates tm port/level/node capability >>>>>>> structures with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exiting features of scheduler wfq packet mode, >>>>>>> scheduler wfq byte mode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and private/shared shaper byte mode. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SoftNIC PMD is also updated with new capabilities. >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Nithin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like patch is causing ABI break, I am getting following >>>>>>> warning [1], >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please check? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pastebin.com_XYNFg14u&d=DwIDaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=ej5sP3-cEhEoCTZOia-QivXqgljtzBcMLtZGs-5c-Uc&s=B8z_5mQ2xO3C1izjmRe2zBApMrCUcW6KcAN-adglhJQ&e= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The RTE_TM API is marked as experimental, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it looks that this was not correctly marked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when __rte_experimental ABI checker was introduced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is marked as experimental at the top of the rte_tm.h, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to other APIs introduced around same time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it was not correctly picked up by the ABI check procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when later introduced, so __rte_experimental was not added >>>>>>> to every function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it time to mature them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said they are not marked as experimental both in header >>>>>>> file (function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations) and .map file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, they are not marked as experimental in >>>>>>> DPDK_20.0 ABI (v19.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so marking them as experimental now will break the ABI. Not >>>>>>> sure what to do, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc'ed a few ABI related names for comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, we need to proceed as the experimental tag removed >>>>>>> and APIs become >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature starting from v19.11, since this is what happened in >>>>>>> practice, and remove >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few existing being experimental references in the doxygen >>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, accidentally we can not make a library as NON- >>>>>>> experimental. >>>>>>>>>>>>> TM never went through experimental to mature transition(see git >>>>>>> log >>>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_tm.h) >>>>>>>>>>>>> It was a bug to not mark as experimental in each function in the >>>>>>> ABI process. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the features like packet marking are not even >>>>>>> implemented by any HW. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, we can make API stable only all the features are >>>>>>> implemented >>>>>>>>>>>>> by one or two HW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes this is what was decided one or two years ago I think. >>>>>>> But rte_tm API was introduced 3 years ago and is implemented by 6 PMDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, specially if the API is not ready yet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But they were part of stable ABI, and marking them as experimental >>>>>>> now will >>>>>>>>>>>> break the old applications using these APIs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it is still marked as EXPERIMENTAL everywhere and API is not ready >>>>>>> yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rte_tm is implemented in 6 PMDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Existing experimental marks are text only for human parsing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The compiler attribute and build time checks are missing, and the >>>>>>> symbol in the >>>>>>>>>> binary doesn't have experimental tag. Our scripts and automated >>>>>>> checks won't >>>>>>>>>> detect it as experimental. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My point is just having experimental comment in header file is not >>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>>> qualify the APIs as experimental. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, we need to break the ABI to make it work on various HW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes this is why I was asking in 19.11 to check our API, >>>>>>> in order to avoid such situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what to do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Either manage ABI versioning, or wait 20.11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IMO, We need to send a patch as Fixes: for the bug of not adding >>>>>>>>>>> __rte_experimental in each function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, this is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why exactly is this wrong? This is the gap that caused the current discussion, right? >>>>>> >>>>> It's wrong for this release, since we can't change things from stable back >>>>> to experimental. Any such patch will have to wait for 20.11, as agreed in >>>>> the discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Deferring the patchet for this release. >>>> >>>> Reminder that if the option "to mark rte_tm_* as experimental in v20.11" >>>> selected, requires deprecation notice before v20.11. >>> >>> Thanks Ferruh for reminder. I'll send a deprecation notice patch for the same. >>> >> >> Hi Nithin Kumar, Cristian, Jerin, >> >> Who is working on updating APIs as experimental? We need that patch to proceed >> with this one. > > Hi Ferruh, > > I'll send out a patch marking all TM API's experimental. > The experimental API change is done & applied, hence for this series: Series applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.