DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Qiu, Michael" <michael.qiu@intel.com>
To: Kyle Larose <eomereadig@gmail.com>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
	"Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and HW offloads
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 05:50:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E6028622F70D9D@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMFWN9=daa-aNdi3+xE=zPt2kndTwgZCZ1YbxnWXyJNpY42EjA@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/2016 11:27 PM, Kyle Larose wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:18:57PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-03-20 14:17, Zhang, Helin:
>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
>>>>> 2016-03-18 10:16, Stephen Hemminger:
>>>>>> Right now, all those offload features are pretty much unusable in a
>>>>>> real product without lots and lots of extra codes and huge bug
>>>>>> surface. It bothers me enough that I would recommend removing much of the
>>>>> filter/offload/ptype stuff from DPDK!
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the biggest challenge is to think about a good filtering API.
>>>>> The offloading has some interaction with the mbuf struct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to suggest rewriting ethdev API by keeping it as is for some time for
>>>>> compatibility while creating a new one. What about the prefix dpdk_netdev_ to
>>>>> progressively replace rte_eth_dev?
>>>> I totally agree with to add new and generic APIs for user applications. But I don't
>>>> think we need to remove all current APIs. Generic APIs may not support all advanced
>>>> hardware features, while specific APIs can. Why not support all? One generic APIs for
>>>> common users, and others APIs for advanced users.
>>> Yes we cannot access to every features of a device through generic API.
>>> Until now we were trying to add an ethdev API for every features even if it
>>> is used by only one driver.
>>> I think we should allow a direct access to the driver by the applications and
>>> work on generic API only for common features.
>> Definite +1.
>> I think that we need to start pushing driver-specific functionality to get exposed
>> via a driver's header files. That allow users who want to extract the max
>> functionality from a particular NIC to do so via those APIs calls, while not
>> polluting the generic ethdev layer.
>>
> What sort of requirements on ABI/API compatibility would this place on
> the drivers? I would hope that it would be treated like any other
> public API within DPDK. I don't think this would be too onerous, but
> it would require that the drivers be designed to deal with it. (I.e.
> don't just expose any old internal driver function).

Why not to implement one simple API with variable arguments, just like
syscall ioctl() does. And drivers implement it's specific hardware
features with a feature bit param, and other needed variable arguments.

Thanks,
Michael
>> On the other hand, I don't like the idea of dpdk_netdev. I think we can work
>> within the existing rte_eth_dev framework.
>>
>> /Bruce
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-22  5:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-18 17:16 Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-18 18:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-20 14:17   ` Zhang, Helin
2016-03-20 19:18     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-21 14:52       ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-21 15:26         ` Kyle Larose
2016-03-22  5:50           ` Qiu, Michael [this message]
2016-03-22 10:19             ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-22 12:19               ` Jay Rolette
2016-03-22 17:17                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-22 17:41                   ` Jerin Jacob
2016-03-23  2:47               ` Qiu, Michael

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=533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E6028622F70D9D@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=michael.qiu@intel.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=eomereadig@gmail.com \
    --cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /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).