From: "Jastrzebski, MichalX K" <michalx.k.jastrzebski@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
"Wodkowski, PawelX" <pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] testpmd: add mode 4 support v6
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:05:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60ABE07DBB3A454EB7FAD707B4BB1582138BD0E7@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1662294.UMylUQV4PJ@xps13>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:31 PM
> To: Wodkowski, PawelX
> Cc: Jastrzebski, MichalX K; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] testpmd: add mode 4 support v6
>
> 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?
No, we didn't want to hide anything.
> 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?
No, we haven't put in the code a straight comment. I wrote about it in cover letter in v6
and there is also show_warnings function in patch 1/2 which will print a warning to the
application.
> 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 13:54 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
2014-11-26 14:05 ` Jastrzebski, MichalX K [this message]
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=60ABE07DBB3A454EB7FAD707B4BB1582138BD0E7@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=michalx.k.jastrzebski@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.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).