From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC662BB8 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:00:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2016 03:00:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,493,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="893537209" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.64]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2016 03:00:34 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:00:31 +0025 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:00:31 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20160224110031.GA18228@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <2221343.vDGpEpgp97@xps13> <20160224101011.GA19784@bricha3-MOBL3> <1937812.yRyThFtAzm@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1937812.yRyThFtAzm@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Kantecki, Tomasz" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: Initial implementation of PQoS EAL extension X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:00:36 -0000 On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:31:47AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-02-24 10:10, Bruce Richardson: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:24:33AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-02-23 23:03, Kantecki, Tomasz: > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > > If there is nothing specific in DPDK for PQos, why writing an example in > > > > > DPDK? > > > > The example makes it much easier to use the technology with DPDK. > > > > > > > > > Maybe the example should be better in the library itself. > > > > The library in question (https://github.com/01org/intel-cmt-cat) has a couple of examples but none of them refers to DPDK. > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mention the library in > > > > > doc/guides/linux_gsg/nic_perf_intel_platform.rst > > > > Ok it can be added to this document. Does it imply -1 for the sample code idea? > > > > > > I may be wrong but I have the feeling the example is more about PQoS than DPDK. > > > So yes, I would vote -1. > > > > > Well, the intersection of DPDK and PQoS is what the example is really all about, > > and as such it is relevant to both DPDK and the library itself. Platform QoS > > can be of great use to packet processing applications for helping to ensure that > > the app gets the resources it needed - especially in a virtualised world - and > > so we believe that having an example in DPDK showing how to use PQoS with DPDK > > is well worthwhile having. It's more effective than a simple doc update in > > raising awareness of the existence of the feature, and also provides for DPDK > > users a readily available app for the user to start playing with to evaluate > > PQoS for their own use-cases. > > I also fail to see what the downside of having the sample app is - it won't add > > significantly to the project maintenance overhead. > > We need to draw a line in the sand to decide what can go in DPDK examples because > any code using some DPDK functions could require to be integrated. > Until now, the examples were used to demonstrate some DPDK API. > Here you are advocating that examples are "marketing tools" to bring awareness on > a library. > I have no strong opinion, except that we cannot host and maintain 100 examples. > Other opinions are welcome. I think it comes down to whether it contributes something that would be useful and appreciated by the users. [While the majority of sample apps have been for showing off DPDK APIs, that's not exclusively the case. There is the DPDK-QAT example, and also the exception_path example showing how to use DPDK with TUN/TAP. I believe both these add value for DPDK users and these examples, and others like them, are worth having.] So, in summary, I honestly think that having an example that shows platform QoS functionality being used with DPDK is worth having as it is something that would be useful to DPDK users. /Bruce