From: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] rte_port_ring and SP/MP, SC/MC flags
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:42:56 +0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <428d5e1d-8a34-bae1-0a4c-238269435903@sts.kz> (raw)
Hello,
I'd like to use rte_port_ring abstract in my application and I'm a
little confused about how it treats underlying ring flags.
According to DPDK API reference, when creating a ring (via
rte_ring_create()/rte_ring_init()), RING_F_SP_ENQ/RING_F_SC_DEQ may be
specified. These flags affect the choice of MP/SP, MC/SC operation when
using 'default' ring enq/deq API, i.e.
rte_ring_enqueue()/rte_ring_dequeue(),
rte_ring_enqueue_bulk()/rte_ring_dequeue_bulk(),
rte_ring_enqueue_burst()/rte_ring_dequeue_burst().
These API then choose which version of enq/deq to use considering the
flags. If you use designated API straightforward, those API (*_mp_*,
*_sc_* etc.) don't care about these flags and perform required
operations right away.
When I use rte_port_ring abstraction, '.f_create()' functions check for
flags which were used when creating an underlying ring (see
lib/librte_port/rte_port_ring.c:75). But then different call tables use
designated ring API which makes checking flags pointless.
I find it confusing to be forced to choose between SP/MP, SC/MC twice,
when creating ring at first and creating abstraction afterwards. And I
see no point in checking for ring flags when creating abstraction
because it really does not affect the operation of this abstraction
anyway. Is this behaviour anyhow justified?
--
Yerden Zhumabekov
next reply other threads:[~2017-01-30 5:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-30 5:42 Yerden Zhumabekov [this message]
2017-02-01 23:00 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
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=428d5e1d-8a34-bae1-0a4c-238269435903@sts.kz \
--to=e_zhumabekov@sts.kz \
--cc=dev@dpdk.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).