From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:41:03 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170905081101.GA20899@jerin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170905074724.lmo3xitraq4cxwg2@neon>
-----Original Message-----
> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:47:26 +0200
> From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
> CC: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
> thomas@monjalon.net, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle
> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:24:38PM +0100, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> > Hi Olivier,
> >
> > On 04/09/2017 14:34, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > > Hi Sergio,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> > > > On 15/08/2017 09:07, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> > > > > * Application programming sequencing would be
> > > > > char pref_mempool[RTE_MEMPOOL_OPS_NAMESIZE];
> > > > > rte_eth_dev_get_preferred_pool_ops(ethdev_port_id, pref_mempool /* out */);
> > > > > rte_mempool_create_empty();
> > > > > rte_mempool_set_ops_byname( , pref_memppol, );
> > > > > rte_mempool_populate_default();
> > > > What about introducing an API like:
> > > > rte_pktmbuf_poll_create_with_ops (..., ops_name, config_pool);
> > > >
> > > > I think that API would help for the case the application wants an mbuf pool
> > > > with ie. stack handler.
> > > > Sure we can do the empty/set_ops/populate sequence, but the only thing we
> > > > want to change from default pktmbuf_pool_create API is the pool handler.
> > > >
> > > > Application just needs to decide the ops handler to use, either default or
> > > > one suggested by PMD?
> > > >
> > > > I think ideally we would have similar APIs:
> > > > - rte_mempool_create_with_ops (...)
> > > > - rte_memppol_xmem_create_with_ops (...)
> > > Today, we may only want to change the mempool handler, but if we
> > > need to change something else tomorrow, we would need to add another
> > > parameter again, breaking the ABI.
> > >
> > > If we pass a config structure, adding a new field in it would also break the
> > > ABI, except if the structure is opaque, with accessors. These accessors would be
> > > functions (ex: mempool_cfg_new, mempool_cfg_set_pool_ops, ...). This is not so
> > > much different than what we have now.
> > >
> > > The advantage I can see of working on a config structure instead of directly on
> > > a mempool is that the api can be reused to build a default config.
> > >
> > > That said, I think it's quite orthogonal to this patch since we still require
> > > the ethdev api.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Just to double check that we are on the same page:
> > - rte_mempool_create is just there for backwards compatibility and a
> > sequence of create_empty -> set_ops (optional) ->init -> populate_default ->
> > obj_iter (optional) is the recommended way of creating mempools.
>
> Yes, I think rte_mempool_create() has too many arguments.
>
> > - if application wants to use rte_mempool_xmem_create with different pool
> > handler needs to replicate function and add set_ops step.
>
> Yes. And now that xen support is going to be removed, I'm wondering if
> this function is still required, given the API is not that easy to
> use. Calling rte_mempool_populate_phys() several times looks more
> flexible. But this is also another topic.
>
> > Now if rte_pktmbuf_pool_create is still the preferred mechanism for
> > applications to create mbuf pools, wouldn't it make sense to offer the
> > option of either pass the ops_name as suggested before or for the
> > application to just set a different pool handler? I understand the it is
> > either breaking API or introducing a new API, but is the solution to
> > basically "copy" the whole function in the application and add an optional
> > step (set_ops)?
>
> I was quite reticent about introducing
> rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_with_ops() because for the same reasons, we
> would also want to introduce functions to create a mempool that use a
> different pktmbuf_init() or pool_init() callback, or to create the pool
> in external memory, ... and we would end up with a functions with too
> many arguments.
>
> I like the approach of having several simple functions, because it's
> easier to read (even if the code is longer), and it's easily extensible.
>
> Now if we feel that the mempool ops is more important than the other
> parameters, we can consider to add it in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create().
Yes. I agree with Sergio here.
Something we could target for v18.02.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-05 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-01 8:05 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Allow application set " Santosh Shukla
2017-06-01 8:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal: Introducing option to " Santosh Shukla
2017-06-30 14:12 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-04 12:33 ` santosh
2017-06-01 8:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ether/ethdev: Allow pmd to advertise preferred pool capability Santosh Shukla
2017-06-30 14:13 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-04 12:39 ` santosh
2017-07-04 13:07 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-04 14:12 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-19 11:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Allow application set mempool handle Hemant Agrawal
2017-06-19 13:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-20 10:37 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-06-20 14:04 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 14:12 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-04 12:25 ` santosh
2017-07-04 15:59 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-05 7:48 ` santosh
2017-07-20 7:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] Dynamically configure " Santosh Shukla
2017-07-20 7:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] eal: allow user to override default pool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-08-15 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-08-15 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] eal: allow user to override default pool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-09-04 11:46 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-07 9:25 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-08-15 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] ethdev: allow pmd to advertise " Santosh Shukla
2017-09-04 12:11 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-04 13:14 ` santosh
2017-09-07 9:21 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-09-07 10:06 ` santosh
2017-09-07 10:11 ` santosh
2017-09-07 11:08 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-09-11 9:33 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-11 12:40 ` santosh
2017-09-11 13:00 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-04 9:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-09-04 13:20 ` santosh
2017-09-04 13:34 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-04 14:24 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-09-05 7:47 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-05 8:11 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2017-09-11 15:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Santosh Shukla
2017-09-11 15:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: allow user to override default pool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-09-25 7:28 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-25 21:23 ` santosh
2017-09-11 15:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] ethdev: get the supported pools for a port Santosh Shukla
2017-09-25 7:37 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-25 21:52 ` santosh
2017-09-29 5:00 ` santosh
2017-09-29 8:32 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-29 10:16 ` santosh
2017-09-29 11:21 ` santosh
2017-09-29 11:23 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-29 11:31 ` santosh
2017-09-13 10:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle santosh
2017-09-19 8:28 ` santosh
2017-09-25 7:24 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-09-25 21:58 ` santosh
2017-10-01 9:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 " Santosh Shukla
2017-10-01 9:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] eal: allow user to override default pool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-10-02 14:29 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-10-06 0:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-06 3:31 ` santosh
2017-10-06 8:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-06 7:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-10-06 7:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] eal: allow user to override default pool handle Santosh Shukla
2017-10-06 7:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] ethdev: get the supported pool for a port Santosh Shukla
2017-10-06 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-01 9:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] ethdev: get the supported pool for a port Santosh Shukla
2017-10-02 14:31 ` Olivier MATZ
2017-10-06 0:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-06 3:32 ` santosh
2017-10-02 8:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] Dynamically configure mempool handle santosh
2017-07-20 7:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: allow pmd to advertise pool handle Santosh Shukla
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=20170905081101.GA20899@jerin \
--to=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).