From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4862C439F8; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8BF40A7F; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC66E40A6E; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FCEB484; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 88B5CB503; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:53 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on hermod.lysator.liu.se X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=disabled version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 Received: from [192.168.1.59] (h-62-63-215-114.A163.priv.bahnhof.se [62.63.215.114]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4663EB469; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Potential RTE bitset RFC Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , dev@dpdk.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , techboard@dpdk.org References: <01427f5d-a297-4ca5-b5e3-5a10bf83cd36@lysator.liu.se> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F1AC@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F1AC@smartserver.smartshare.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 2024-01-28 14:52, Morten Brørup wrote: >> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors@lysator.liu.se] >> Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2024 19.32 >> >> Hi. >> >> The new timer RFC ("htimer") I submitted last year also included a new >> bitset API. >> >> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230315170342.214127-2- >> mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com/ >> >> My experience is that multi-word bitsets are often useful. Examples >> from >> DPDK are rte_service.c and DSW its "service ports" bitset (both have 64 >> as a hard upper limit). Small, but multi-word, bitsets are not >> particularly hard to open-code, but then you end up with a lot of >> duplication. >> >> I wanted to ask if there is an interest in seeing a bitset API (as per >> my patchset) in DPDK. > > Absolutely! > Your bitset patch seems very complete, with test cases and all. > Let's standardize on this, so we can avoid variants of similar code all over the place. > >> >> Upstreaming htimer, including having it replace today's rte_timer is >> more work than I can commit to, so I think you won't get RTE bitset >> that >> way any time soon. > > Thanks for the update regarding the htimer progress. :-) > > I certainly don't object to a dedicated fast path library for high-volume timers, such as those in a TCP/IP (or QUIC/IP) stack. > > In my opinion, the existing rte_timer library can be improved at a later stage, if anybody cares. It's a shame if that requirement is holding back the addition of a new and useful library. > You could just add the core HTW parts of the htimer library to DPDK as a new library (and leave out the rest of htimer), but in that case you want to tailor this API to fit a future HTW-based rte_timer implementation. Without actually implementing such a replacement, it's hard to know exactly what properties you want from the HTW API/implementation. Therefor, I think you should do both at the same time.