From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35B291C0 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 18:14:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so84249520wmv.1 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:14:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=snOaj22LeeAtZuiyLvIMEBumZ2gXK3JrPlfU0XGHFgk=; b=NtvURZ2ImEo6eJlMH999zlyUqADC8RZHxd6rS1g7FkYE2BvFIygRcUXLuxyE8qEDTd HakN16X6EdMMP7J8m8Vls6OOrsZs2k7Z9qFW3Kf9jP38g2DNHevNZcXGYxmSAWYiLYWa VVVc9dlAtiuM7bKrQAkRVusfmz8A/U54+gNBKx6RArYUIBviVO1hiw753/3o2JJ2edYG vsvnGDp1G+S4qKT0mkTcq4RdmBIZjK33/GvURQZDm3u8bm+yaZ+zrolzSsVBvZkF/51l IeV0RTH4fK0gd6irX8Qobd7eXxDrnSzKa5ECD1Eqtd6DCZfTs1j5SHM3oBypcxUtB0wL PZeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=snOaj22LeeAtZuiyLvIMEBumZ2gXK3JrPlfU0XGHFgk=; b=F7n+AI4dN6j0fnYejIRK2Avg8t8iSJ0f3emsyIfQEB2BunNtVE2tHgsrQdeicHVcxK 0uayrq4oVj4xam4CPuoQ1hBEMhTMLDycPgUwNHIo69qPpTFbW1LqRw+69tnTqd6UfFe/ arvVEQ7yCVK2SmEOUIu1EGB1XnqyPfR47DXgIFr+B9lWNmv2TfrBDHHMvb/bqABWaDwV e39rysba1TbpFSaSQKTXfziqvxPoD94+d8IGh/747ixYsQEqOAC9SDVWYJJLaCcz8con 3LlX8ny9D4eOn47PW8EsPCC4N+WWr/2oM7ybYG/O65SSruc/JlNZQYsBxDt5gX6Y5KnS 5i6w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHsH3MdpmJi0kmyHphqWdqLchkws3w24evrvb3uDKMZFhDwlfbgf20pHcV2j3LnTaJ2yEoBMYQl4WVN6zBRisiYcxL+w== X-Received: by 10.28.4.212 with SMTP id 203mr6639805wme.89.1449249286669; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k133sm4333456wmg.18.2015.12.04.09.14.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:14:46 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ran Shalit Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 18:13:36 +0100 Message-ID: <7417064.0yGiFcWcuW@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1990785.CcVbSUjEhi@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] dpdk - for video frames too ? X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:14:47 -0000 Hi, The dev mailing list is more appropriate for this discussion. 2015-12-04 18:30, Ran Shalit: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > > 2015-11-12 09:14, Ran Shalit: > >> I need to develop a driver/application which capture and output video > >> frames from PCIe device , and is using Intel cpu (i7), Centand Intel's > >> media sdk server framework for the video compression. > >> > >> I am not sure what will be a better choice between the following 2 options: > >> 1. application which use dpdk for capture and output to the PCIe device > >> 2. v4l driver for the PCIe device > >> > >> dpdk is supposed to be able to read/write from PCIe device too. > >> I tried to see the prons/cons of dpdk compared to v4l. > >> > >> prons of dpdk, as I understand them: > >> 1. userspace application (easier debugging compared to kernel > >> debugging of v4l device driver) > >> 2. supposed better performance > >> > >> cons of dpdk compared to v4l: > >> 1. I could not find examples for PCIe device usage , or samples for > >> showing how application (such as media sdk) use dpdk video frames. > > > > There is no API for video currently. > > There is an API for networking drivers and a crypto API is coming. > > If you feel a DPDK poll mode driver would be a good design, you are > > welcome to do it. In case it brings some performance improvement, > > it can be decided (no guarantee) to integrate it in the scope of the DPDK. > > Hi Thomas, > > I've reply for a message posted some time ago. > Is dpdk capable of recieveing and sending buffers from PCIe using DMAs ? Of course yes. > I think that if the buffers represent video or not is less important, > because the important thing is to be capable to stream buffers from > (or to) the PCIe device. > Do you think it is ready to be used for such purpose ? You need to write a driver for your device. Then your application needs an video API in DPDK. > I ask becuase I try to see which alternative is better v4l2 or dpdk. > Dpdk can be used from userspace which in my opinion is great > advantage, but if it can't do these streaming of buffers from PCIe, > than probably I should stick with v4l2 development. I think your development would be welcome in DPDK.