From: "Ding, Xuan" <xuan.ding@intel.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com" <ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com>
Cc: "mdr@ashroe.eu" <mdr@ashroe.eu>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"mb@smartsharesystems.com" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
"asekhar@marvell.com" <asekhar@marvell.com>,
"pbhagavatula@marvell.com" <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
"grive@u256.net" <grive@u256.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] doc: announce header split deprecation
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:44:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB55137AB289336AE1844303D3E78B9@BN9PR11MB5513.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d566ce1-bd7d-ad4a-2d79-e443927687fb@oktetlabs.ru>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:14 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ding, Xuan
> <xuan.ding@intel.com>; ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com
> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; dev@dpdk.org; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> mb@smartsharesystems.com; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>;
> asekhar@marvell.com; pbhagavatula@marvell.com; grive@u256.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce header split deprecation
>
> On 7/14/22 16:25, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 14/07/2022 14:54, Ding, Xuan:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>> 14/07/2022 07:50, Ding, Xuan:
> >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>>> 23/05/2022 16:20, xuan.ding@intel.com:
> >>>>>> From: Xuan Ding <xuan.ding@intel.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT offload was introduced some
> >>> time
> >>>>> ago
> >>>>>> to substitute bit-field header_split in struct rte_eth_rxmode. It
> >>>>>> allows to enable header split offload with the header size
> >>>>>> controlled using split_hdr_size in the same structure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right now, no single PMD actually supports
> >>>>>> RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT with above definition. Many
> >>>>>> examples and test apps initialize the field to 0 explicitly. The
> >>>>>> most of drivers simply ignore split_hdr_size since the offload is
> >>>>>> not advertised, but
> >>>>> some double-check that its value is 0.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT and split_header_size
> >>> field
> >>>>>> will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xuan Ding <xuan.ding@intel.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>>>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>>>>> index 4e5b23c53d..b8114f29ed 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >>>>>> @@ -125,3 +125,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >>>>>> applications should be updated to use the ``dmadev`` library
> instead,
> >>>>>> with the underlying HW-functionality being provided by the ``ioat``
> or
> >>>>>> ``idxd`` dma drivers
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +* ethdev: After bit-field header split was removed, the
> >>>>>> +``RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT``
> >>>>>> +offload and the ``split_hdr_size`` field in structure
> >>>>>> +``rte_eth_rxmode`` to enable header split offload are not
> >>>>>> +supported in any
> >>>>> PMDs. They will be removed in DPDK 22.11.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would have been good to talk about rte_eth_rxseg_split which is
> >>>>> similar and configured per-queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your suggestion.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I'm a little confused, are you referring that I need to involve
> >>>> protocol
> >>> based buffer split?
> >>>> About the deprecation of header split, I haven't realized its
> >>>> connection to
> >>> rte_eth_rxseg_split.
> >>>
> >>> What???
> >>> In old versions of your patch "ethdev: introduce protocol type based
> >>> header split"
> >>> you wrote:
> >>> "
> >>> A new proto field is introduced in the rte_eth_rxseg_split structure
> >>> reserved field to specify header protocol type.
> >>> With Rx offload flag RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT enabled and
> >>> protocol type configured, PMD will split the ingress packets into
> >>> two separate regions.
> >>> "
> >>
> >> It has a long history...
> >> It was corrected in v4 that RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT is used
> >> to enable header split offload with the header size controlled using
> "split_hdr_size".
> >> But no single PMD actually supports
> RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT for this purpose.
> >> So we finally decide to deprecate this flag.
> >>
> >> http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220402104109.472078-
> 2-
> >> wenxuanx.wu@intel.com/
> >>
> >> In following series, I use RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT instead.
> >> It is for multi-segments packet split. And it still needs a "proto_hdr" field
> in rte_eth_rxmode to configure split location.
> >
> > I know this history because I was the one asking you to deprecate this.
> > But it seems you didn't get the big picture.
> >
> >>>> Currently there are 2 acks, add more PMD maintainers to help review
> >>>> this deprecation notice for header split, thanks a lot!
> >>>
> >>> I cannot say my feeling strong enough.
> >>
> >> So IMO the deprecation for header split is not relevant with buffer split.
> But we can still clean the code.
> >> Hope it make things clearer.
> >
> > They are almost the same features.
> > So when deprecating one, it is important to mention what remains.
> > If needed RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_BUFFER_SPLIT can still be used and it is
> > configured per-queue, while RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_HEADER_SPLIT was
> > configurable per-port.
> >
> > Andrew, Ferruh, do you agree to improve this deprecation notice by
> > adding above information?
>
> +1 tt is definitely a very good idea.
Thanks, v2 is on the way.
Regards,
Xuan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-15 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-23 14:20 xuan.ding
2022-05-24 14:58 ` Ray Kinsella
2022-07-12 11:43 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-07-13 9:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-07-14 5:50 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-14 8:08 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-07-14 12:54 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-14 13:25 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-07-14 14:07 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-14 15:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-07-14 16:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-07-15 8:52 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-14 16:56 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2022-07-15 8:28 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-15 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-07-15 12:43 ` Ding, Xuan
2022-07-15 12:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-07-15 12:44 ` Ding, Xuan [this message]
2022-07-15 20:30 ` [PATCH v2] " xuan.ding
2022-07-16 21:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=BN9PR11MB55137AB289336AE1844303D3E78B9@BN9PR11MB5513.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=xuan.ding@intel.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=asekhar@marvell.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com \
--cc=grive@u256.net \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
--cc=pbhagavatula@marvell.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--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).