From: "Venkatesan, Venky" <venky.venkatesan@intel.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Poor device abstraction's
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:57:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D97406521E@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140411174727.GF911@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Agree that the patch sets are a step towards fixing that, but there is a lot more to be done on this. Could we start discussion on what the "ideal" abstraction should be? I'd like to pool those into a formal proposal that we can discuss and drive through a series of patches to make that happen. Even semi-freezing anything prior to that would be premature.
-Venky
-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 10:47 AM
To: Stephen Hemminger
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Poor device abstraction's
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:33:31AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> One of my pet peeve's is that the device driver config does not
> abstract the properties of the Ethernet device. The existing
> parameters match those of Intel's Ethernet hardware but not much else.
> It also makes it hard to write generic applications. If the
> application has to query the device driver name string and insert
> different parameters for igb, igbvf, ixgbe and vmxnet3 then the API was designed wrong.
>
I agree. I think the patches that recently got integrated from Olivier are a step toward fixing that, but theres some more work to be done.
Neil
> Specific examples:
> * the "descriptors" argument to rx/tx is interpreted as a hardware resource
> not the number of packets. An application really wants to say "you may buffer
> up to 100us of packets" not have to guess what the underlying driver does.
>
> * the rthresh/wthresh/pthresh are PCI device artifacts and correct value is
> different for each HW device shouldn't be exposed to application. The API
> should be something like "device may burst up to N packets and/or T latency".
>
> These seems like issues of a transition from a cool toy to talk to
> Intel hardware to a useful application infrastructure.
>
> That is why I would hate to see the existing Intel device centric API frozen.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-09 18:39 [dpdk-dev] DPDK API/ABI Stability Neil Horman
2014-04-09 21:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-04-10 10:54 ` Neil Horman
2014-04-11 17:33 ` [dpdk-dev] Poor device abstraction's Stephen Hemminger
2014-04-11 17:47 ` Neil Horman
2014-04-11 17:57 ` Venkatesan, Venky [this message]
2014-04-11 17:59 ` Neil Horman
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=1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D97406521E@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com \
--to=venky.venkatesan@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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).