From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <johndale@cisco.com> Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3733A1B823 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:59:12 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3825; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1522785553; x=1523995153; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VU9h0IjWkI1GjVGcFxIIFueFqWxNhB2v8FfbiL5Vao8=; b=h0OHG4Bc2AfGqgZp+BE1Ft3hSMk1j7Ziz6u7P0h5DQUQ/Nqe/qkA2n6X SPjd4gf+UjqM7u10BaI42+fodcameD07mzi4mkKVrG8VWyO/GgldYN02Y lvGISTvWWYguCaVVaxfzHnhGURB7rnMI58eq60TZGSg4xy9tynksTRkqc Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DPAACj3MNa/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNCYW8oCotVjQWBdIEPklWBegsjhGAChEIhNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJ?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUiAQEBAQIBGCI/BQcEAgEIEQQBAR8QMh0IAgQBDQUIhH0ID69kiESCJYdhg?= =?us-ascii?q?VQ/g2IugxEDgg2FIgKXOwgChVCIVYE4OoMfhy6HJoFvhkECERMBgSQBHDiBUnA?= =?us-ascii?q?VRxCCJgmQRG8BjSWBFwEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,402,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="376242647" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Apr 2018 19:59:11 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w33JxBHR021499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:59:11 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:59:11 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:59:11 -0500 From: "John Daley (johndale)" <johndale@cisco.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> CC: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, Shijith Thotton <shijith.thotton@cavium.com>, Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>, Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Konstantin Ananyev" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, "Adrien Mazarguil" <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>, Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>, Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, "Shahaf Shuler" <shahafs@mellanox.com>, Tomasz Duszynski <tdu@semihalf.com>, "Jianbo Liu" <jianbo.liu@arm.com>, Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>, Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.com>, Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@cavium.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, Shrikrishna Khare <skhare@vmware.com>, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>, Allain Legacy <allain.legacy@windriver.com>, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> Thread-Topic: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Thread-Index: AQHTyC3BcWAgFvrI0U2iyTvrTKdYR6Pve2og Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: <c6ac7deb69404bc5bdfc743506dd836f@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.145.148] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:59:13 -0000 Hi, Inline. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:48 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>; Jerin Jacob > <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>; Shijith Thotton > <shijith.thotton@cavium.com>; Santosh Shukla > <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>; Rahul Lakkireddy > <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>; John Daley (johndale) <johndale@cisco.com= >; > Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Konstantin Ananyev > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Qi Z= hang > <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Adrien Mazar= guil > <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Nelio Laranjeiro > <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>; Shahaf > Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>; Tomasz Duszynski <tdu@semihalf.com>; > Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@arm.com>; Alejandro Lucero > <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>; Hemant Agrawal > <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; > Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.com>; Rasesh Mody > <rasesh.mody@cavium.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <arybchenko@solarflare.com>; Shrikrishna Khare <skhare@vmware.com>; > Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>; Allain Legacy > <allain.legacy@windriver.com>; Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>; > Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API >=20 > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." >=20 > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags in > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, when call= ing > respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for ea= ch > queue. >=20 > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not repeated= in > queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html >=20 > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port offload= s in > queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? YES >=20 >=20 > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation and rem= ove > the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs swit= ched > to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, the sonner= it is > fixed, the better. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? >=20 >=20 YES > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at port l= evel, > cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES >=20 >=20 > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every = queue > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it ca= n be > applied to a specific queue. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? YES >=20 >=20 > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) Thank you >=20