From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Wodkowski, PawelX" <pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] testpmd: add mode 4 support v6
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:30:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1662294.UMylUQV4PJ@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F6F2A6264E145F47A18AB6DF8E87425D12B64A43@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
2014-11-26 13:00, Wodkowski, PawelX:
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > 2014-11-26 11:17, Michal Jastrzebski:
> > > From: Pawel Wodkowski <pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com>
> > > --- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c
> > > @@ -254,8 +254,17 @@ pkt_burst_checksum_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
> > > */
> > > nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(fs->rx_port, fs->rx_queue, pkts_burst,
> > > nb_pkt_per_burst);
> > > +#ifndef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BOND
> > > if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0))
> > > return;
> > > +#else
> > > + if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0 && (fs->forward_timeout == 0 ||
> > > + fs->next_forward_time > rte_rdtsc())))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if (fs->forward_timeout != 0)
> > > + fs->next_forward_time = rte_rdtsc() + fs->forward_timeout;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > I don't understand why you need to make such change for bonding,
> > and there is no comment to explain.
> > Bonding should be a PMD like any other and shouldn't require such change.
> > I don't know mode 4 but it seems there is a design problem here.
> >
>
> It is an implication of requirement that was formed on beginning of bonding
> implementation - bonded interface should be transparent to user app. But this
> requirement in is in collision with mode 4. It need to periodically receive and
> transmit frames (LACP and marker) that are not passed to user app but
> processed/produced in background. If this will not happen in at least 10 times
> per second mode 4 will not work.
>
> Most of (all?) user applications do RX/TX more often than 10 times per second,
> so this will have neglectable impact to those apps (it will have to check this
> 100ms maximum interval of rx/tx as I did in code you pointed).
>
> We had discussed all options with Declan and Bruce, and this seems to be the
> most transparent way to implement mode 4 without using any kind of locking
> inside library.
So you agree there is a design problem and you were initially trying to push it
without raising the problem in the hope that nobody will see it?
It's really not the good way to work in an Open Source project.
Is there any comment in the API to explain this new constraint?
Do you think we can change how Rx/Tx works in DPDK to integrate this feature?
Actually, I think these bonding features should be implemented in a layer on
top of DPDK. It's not the DPDK responsibility to make some protocol processing.
Bonding was integrated with the promise that it's transparent and really close
to the hardware ports.
Today I see we clearly need a discussion to know what should be implemented
in DPDK. Which protocol layer is the limit?
I explained my point of view but the decision belongs to the whole community.
--
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-26 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-26 11:17 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] bond: mode 4 support Michal Jastrzebski
2014-11-26 11:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] bond: add mode 4 support v6 Michal Jastrzebski
2014-11-26 11:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] testpmd: " Michal Jastrzebski
2014-11-26 12:31 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-26 13:00 ` Wodkowski, PawelX
2014-11-26 13:30 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2014-11-26 14:05 ` Jastrzebski, MichalX K
2014-11-26 12:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] bond: mode 4 support Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-26 12:24 ` Jastrzebski, MichalX K
2014-11-26 12:27 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-26 13:29 ` Jastrzebski, MichalX K
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1662294.UMylUQV4PJ@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).