From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <3chas3@gmail.com> Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DA511DE; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:32:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 1so34988438qkl.3; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:32:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=otcX1RUa2b2dBdq7xLV7BAyegAlIkQn0DukqjNk3n/g=; b=uUIHg/Cq5sZA6lEwr0Ry8e1aIwh06utaDCfgu++CIQlZXi7HU4nGAzUxCSD0Ji/pP1 5I1l8U0E5mvZ/1BuyUo0Ke5IdY26GZJ8RifyQrTRt+6tqyixfUXRyO0vIKu6Y5MqgeEa IiCgzGPU8xaYIrPg+hijBOOvBk+tX2gAAVs+/ce3PzI+IYgkGXm6GPYoZ3MADezYsswS HiGS6ACCQEq9e4xg59OvQbdJbu7+ZJ4wUn6CLkO/oFfigzyZHVlKgkpy7rbisE7aGXq5 dZxTggONe/0MhgAGFhqY06tLoD3avkDDi4RhmFNJWjV44FQtgQs7X9nKwhWlgA4Bzzlc oH2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=otcX1RUa2b2dBdq7xLV7BAyegAlIkQn0DukqjNk3n/g=; b=PMofEok1s9OFOZ9wNXAA4gGm6CUgh7mKLdkE8l8QFwbhA5LB8mKEzcHFDFk9JSlLXx tQKcsglQfvSbpDydLpVo40mxRC1njEQBHyRELVSBZXNaKRH0ajNQMovT3q3JPWXHJiUX 86VCv5soaTuoSv8e6f2bY0dbYEGbtubqH0bteMvLlSazMVFWHFedO+IVdX8k2YEm5Nrq 0kGmv2Q8QyP44S3EHn4r0CjTgBsNldWztub/daW+Peae5Ehu2qsjrbLmBRpY5n3Og2sd XlNTSuAtg0iX/x4mEJCS+qtI7084hJ/N/MODR/7niZop7m4uIKR/5ylKtXmfydwqrJ7o iKUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2zh/mhkqjoenp4BOzVJCwopthPrCCTr1IiIgYb1Vg8BX2WqavmPznBccnFzPpUzQ== X-Received: by 10.55.155.88 with SMTP id d85mr6774509qke.233.1489660359051; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monolith.home (pool-96-255-82-208.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [96.255.82.208]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id n84sm3322412qki.42.2017.03.16.03.32.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1489660357.1692.4.camel@gmail.com> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Vincent JARDIN , Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , "Wiles, Keith" , "techboard@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:32:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7232038D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <4b3a0ff4-3d19-8e4b-0cbf-2a08e6433285@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <78399437.9zD9LecKHj@xps13> <516e9e6b-0a37-4b3c-ee06-119b317da1fc@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7232038D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:32:40 -0000 On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 03:18 +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com] > > > > Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit : > > >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board > > meeting. > > > I agree Tim. > > > CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting. > > > > Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list. > > I think the discussion on the mailing list is at an impasse and it won't be resolved there. I think the Tech Board needs to consider several issues: > - What are the requirements for a new PMD to be accepted? For example, you're asking for performance data in this case, when this hasn't been a requirement for other PMDs. It does seem like that would be the purpose of the tech board in the first place. The tech board doesn't need to decide individual matters but must at least provide guidelines for the developers to follow. Otherwise you are asking for a popular vote to decide matters. As for performance data, the tech board could certainly make this a requirement. If your argument is that we can't require X because we didn't require X in the past means that the tech board is basically pointless -- it can't make any changes to the existing processes. Should performance be a criterion? Possibly. What happens when X is faster at B but slower at A and Y is faster at A but slower at B? Now you don't have a clear case of what "performance" means since it varies based on what the end user is doing. So which is faster? DPDK already has overlapping PMD's -- PCAP, AF_PACKET and now TAP. So if your reasoning is that DPDK doesn't want overlapping support, DPDK needs to start thinking about narrowing down the existing overlapping PMD's. Otherwise, it does look like hypocrisy. > - Should there be different requirements for PMDs for virtual devices versus physical devices? How "real" does a device need to be? SRIOV blurs the line somewhat between virtual and physical devices. What is a VF, physical or virtual? It looks like a physical device in DPDK, but it's really virtual. Personally, I would prefer to see a minimum set of required capabilities. Not every driver needs to support offload but it seems like there should be some minimum set of functionality, like changing the MTU, supporting tagged traffic, or changing the MAC address. Stuff a driver might need to be able to interoperate with other parts of DPDK (like bonding). > - Based on these criteria, should the AVP PMD be accepted or not?