From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB4445A8D; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2A742F21; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA1842DA3 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20b9b35c7c7so17236505ad.1 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1728064348; x=1728669148; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=1ZhOHhrJ/FwRCFyQ3k/GkWM+xTKwTsTsKBaRb3xRCEY=; b=nNT8SdQ3NvbzKKMYNCGh7nIBLbT5nnsKjnppOytnh7Fa9moxC/ICb4bMPkzaSr9bsp SpZDPmiDQlqEoDVM0K4CoHVarSIGttFG20tH945/D8HY3E36iHfvy7f294AnOeOTzWR8 99MasnJFaXazQo51pjo6shHg5AKpH9ncCLH1h4L4nJzNU2flGPGeJ8Sb8L5JNsyYdpvx MSTMbFnj0A5NBltnbIAcyZKrAetxyW6ujupseIkortGENHx1n5/+ePKVUjj3w+GJb+K6 XISEWAdIHZ+uo6+IW4jxZRTI++Sc5TJiy5aQQI0c4D2YiE23GOKmh9ieS5EQrHkn7xyR Gjqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728064348; x=1728669148; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1ZhOHhrJ/FwRCFyQ3k/GkWM+xTKwTsTsKBaRb3xRCEY=; b=Yy/FWZDW/U6EmnqSAaZY+AwvFPWf6Rmu2d7EQQuE+W9Z/QQDy+vM5e8w87bJWW2rOJ 62saVm61Jesh6au9EpEEJOcPDZidRo8ldqDoW68sv3V5rEt+k9grO37FNi2S6IHr6zqT anY/rvcodT8+PicUevlLq9aFE88SiO1CMGjd0CIldk2PXjvlDb6gLBTi5e6Q68wsIeSe s26/ncfIjGcOSQBmvwVnzRt5O7Stvg4aondCC78JbA0jw4yan0Jph6Pz5OcG79QKrFpL Rz9FSURllsWSbeJE2hycxa0M6FMqbO4n/N7mTR5oR5VVjMrJRoIMa9MNqWp8lUmOH6IM QiYA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUnSnMjxFrBkpYvP6/WNreF5Zg7uBV8oa0l5BpLwpTPFeNF7Ot+yw1suf27bebR3mETdVY=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxyGO/eRO3KLZ4H9KDdIvlYs5uHtvKXaft+m/YhQCPRmiQFjv1H XM7/2SOiQgwXyFD8OKzAX8tClai6+G6f1wrWnor6n+311Dm/CV8hVt6cZVQz5HY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFX3rW3PWUXeI9LHElXoAleeJa9ZcaFlLfuxCcGGKeEuqZfLu5Yb7LZUeMeQurAb8t3fnQoHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:658c:b0:2d8:898c:3e9b with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e1e631ec64mr4149155a91.25.1728064347991; Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e1e86653e7sm1912295a91.42.2024.10.04.10.52.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 10:52:26 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage , "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , Andrew Rybchenko , nd , Dhruv Tripathi , Honnappa Nagarahalli , "Varghese, Vipin" Subject: Re: [RFC v2] ethdev: an API for cache stashing hints Message-ID: <20241004105226.6c2952be@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <6ece19b1-be61-4eef-9a04-fc2bcff54bd8@amd.com> References: <20240715221141.16153-1-wathsala.vithanage@arm.com> <6ece19b1-be61-4eef-9a04-fc2bcff54bd8@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 22:43:55 +0100 Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> > >> And I can see set() has two different APIs, 'rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_rx' & > >> 'rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_tx', is there a reason to have two separate APIs > >> instead of having one which gets RX & TX as argument, as done in internal > >> device ops? > > > > Some types/hints may only apply to a single queue direction, so I thought it > > would be better to separate them out into separate Rx and Tx APIs for ease > > of comprehension/use for the developer. > > In fact, underneath, it uses one API for both Rx and Tx. > > > > Hi Wathsala, > > Do you still pursue this RFC, should we expect a new version for this > release? > > Did you have any change to measure the impact of the changes in this patch? > > > Btw, do you think the LLC aware lcore selection patch [1] can be > relevant or can it help for the cases this patch addresses? Don't think this is ready for 24.11 release. The patch fails multiple tests, has some doc issues and would need more exmaples and support. Since it requires an ABI change, if you want to pursue it further send a new version and maybe it will be ready for next ABI breaking release 25.11.