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 C315CA00C4; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:58:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6B040693; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:58:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDD340689 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:58:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1672657118; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1x+lClajXYu40h/llW4NCpWSegsXIsDLz6u7ON0f70E=; b=Tysnrqr8wXisp5sBELRsJtooP/7C+Aku4qd8ihlZ2QF+PExs4oVSxH9VeBNHFNEkR0gVuV WKOla5Gc28TKAvHTopfEyeduTmDfE0sVlj29bKihWii5RR3TcagAVjFWMLCDR62FRzNSHM zD9kHlh+CU00lCgNmn0T7OA5IoFGy4U= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-549-JnH4iQ_OOSe8-WvRBAK4pg-1; Mon, 02 Jan 2023 05:58:36 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JnH4iQ_OOSe8-WvRBAK4pg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68992101A5B4; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.11] (unknown [10.39.208.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85722026D4B; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:58:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] net/vhost: support asynchronous data path To: Yuan Wang , dev@dpdk.org Cc: jiayu.hu@intel.com References: <20221216020009.70206-1-yuanx.wang@intel.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: <20221216020009.70206-1-yuanx.wang@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hi Yuan, On 12/16/22 03:00, Yuan Wang wrote: > Vhost asynchronous data-path offloads packet copy from the CPU > to the DMA engine. As a result, large packet copy can be accelerated > by the DMA engine, and vhost can free CPU cycles for higher level > functions. > > In this patch, we enable asynchronous data-path for vhostpmd. > Asynchronous data path is enabled per tx/rx queue, and users need > to specify the DMA device used by the tx/rx queue. Each tx/rx queue > only supports to use one DMA device, but one DMA device can be shared > among multiple tx/rx queues of different vhost PMD ports. > > Two PMD parameters are added: > - dmas: specify the used DMA device for a tx/rx queue. > (Default: no queues enable asynchronous data path) > - dma-ring-size: DMA ring size. > (Default: 4096). > > Here is an example: > --vdev 'eth_vhost0,iface=./s0,dmas=[txq0@0000:00.01.0;rxq0@0000:00.01.1],dma-ring-size=4096' > > Signed-off-by: Jiayu Hu > Signed-off-by: Yuan Wang > Signed-off-by: Wenwu Ma > --- > drivers/net/vhost/meson.build | 1 + > drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.c | 512 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > drivers/net/vhost/rte_eth_vhost.h | 15 + > drivers/net/vhost/version.map | 7 + > drivers/net/vhost/vhost_testpmd.c | 67 ++++ > 5 files changed, 569 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/net/vhost/vhost_testpmd.c > This RFC is identical to the v5 that you sent for last release, and so the comments I made on it are still valid. Is this intentionally re-sent? Regards, Maxime