From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
"Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
"Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:51:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772589E2901EC@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b3a2579-6bce-55f5-6e03-0974729cc95b@intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:03 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; Horton, Remy
> <remy.horton@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters
>
> On 3/14/2018 6:53 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:52 PM
> >> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; Horton, Remy <remy.horton@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> >> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters
> >>
> >> On 3/14/2018 5:23 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:13 PM
> >>>> To: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Jingjing Wu
> >>>> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Beilei Xing
> >>>> <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>;
> >>>> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-
> >>>> tuned Tx/Rx parameters
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/14/2018 3:48 PM, Remy Horton wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 14/03/2018 14:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you please remove deprecation notice in this patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> + /* Defaults for drivers that don't implement preferred
> >>>>>>> + * queue parameters.
> >>>>> [..]
> >>>>>> Not sure about having these defaults here. It is OK to have defaults
> >>>> in driver,
> >>>>>> in application or in config file, but I am not sure if putting them
> >>>> into device
> >>>>>> abstraction layer hides them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What about not providing any default in ethdev layer, and get zero
> >>>> as invalid
> >>>>>> when using them?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is something I have been thinking about, and I am going to
> >>>> remove
> >>>>> them for the V2. Original motive was to avoid breaking testpmd for
> >>>> PMDs
> >>>>> that don't give defaults (i.e. almost all of them). The alternative
> >>>> is
> >>>>> to put place-holders into all the PMDs themselves, but I am not sure
> >>>> if
> >>>>> this is appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think preferred values should be optional, PMD should have right to
> >>>> not
> >>>> provide any. Implementation in 4/4 forces preferred values, either in
> >>>> all PMDs
> >>>> or in ethdev layer.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about changing approach in application:
> >>>> is preferred value provided [1] ?
> >>>> yes => use it by sending value 0
> >>>> no => use application provided value, same as now, so control should
> >>>> be in
> >>>> application.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am aware this breaks the comfort of just providing 0 and PMD values
> >>>> will be
> >>>> used but covers the case there is no PMD values.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>> it can be possible to check if preferred value provided by comparing 0,
> >>>> but if 0
> >>>> is a valid value that can be problem. It may not be problem with
> >>>> current
> >>>> variables but it may be when this struct extended, it may be good to
> >>>> think about
> >>>> alternative here.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should use the condition of "yes => use it by sending value 0". That is non-intuitive. Ideally, the application should query
> >> and then if query responds with value as '0' (which can be valid for some variables in future), it sends its own value to setup functions
> >> (whether '0' or something else, in case of 0 response, would depend on the knob).
> >>
> >> Right, at that stage application already knows what is the preferred value and
> >> can directly use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Will it be too much to:
> >>
> >> 1) Adding a new field into "rte_eth_[rt]xconf" to say if exists prefer PMD
> >> values. "prefer_device_values" ?
> >> Application can provide values as usual, but if that field is set, abstraction
> >> layer overwrites the application values with PMD preferred ones. If there is no
> >> PMD preferred values continue using application ones.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) Add a bitwise "is_set" field to new "preferred_size" struct, which may show
> >> status of other fields in the struct, if PMD set a valid value for them or not,
> >> so won't have to rely on the 0 check.
> >
> > That all seems like too much hassle for such small thing.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > If we really want to allow PMD not to provide preferred values -
> > then instead of adding rte_eth_dev_pref_info into dev_info we can simply
> > introduce a new optional ethdev API call:
> > rte_eth_get_pref_params() or so.
> > If the PMD doesn’t want to provide preferred params to the user it simply
> > wouldn't implement that function.
>
> Same can be done with updated rte_eth_dev_info.
> Only application needs to check and use PMD preferred values, so this will mean
> dropping "pass 0 to get preferred values" feature in initial set.
That's ok by me, but it means every PMD has to provide some preferred values?
Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-15 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 12:08 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-14 12:28 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-14 14:09 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 14:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 15:10 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-15 9:02 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 15:48 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-14 16:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 17:23 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-14 17:52 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 18:53 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-03-14 21:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-14 21:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-15 13:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-15 14:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-15 14:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-16 13:54 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-16 14:18 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-16 15:36 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-20 15:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 10:14 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-21 13:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-20 14:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 6:51 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-21 10:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-21 10:45 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-15 12:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2018-03-15 13:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-15 14:42 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-03-07 12:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-28 7:11 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-03-30 15:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-30 15:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-31 0:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-03-21 14:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-03-28 7:18 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-03 11:00 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-31 0:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-03 8:49 ` Remy Horton
2018-03-27 18:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-30 10:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-31 0:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-04 18:56 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-04-05 10:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-04 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-06 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-09 12:55 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-09 14:38 ` Remy Horton
2018-04-10 4:18 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-10 6:09 ` Remy Horton
2018-04-10 6:39 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-04-06 17:01 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 " Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/4] net/e1000: add TxRx tuning parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/4] net/i40e: " Remy Horton
2018-04-10 9:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/4] testpmd: make use of per-PMD TxRx parameters Remy Horton
2018-04-10 12:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] ethdev: add per-PMD tuning of RxTx parmeters Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-10 18:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772589E2901EC@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=remy.horton@intel.com \
--cc=shreyansh.jain@nxp.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).