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 A49402BB1 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 03:27:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2018 18:27:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,393,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="39954972" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2018 18:27:26 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 18:27:25 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.80]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.166]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:27:23 +0800 From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" To: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Wu, Jingjing" , Adrien Mazarguil , Nelio Laranjeiro , Yongseok Koh , Shahaf Shuler , Tomasz Duszynski , Jianbo Liu , Alejandro Lucero , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , Harish Patil , Rasesh Mody , "Andrew Rybchenko" , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz Thread-Topic: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Thread-Index: AQHTyC3IG+3hYECl0Uy4c//dfm8QZ6Psrg9w Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 01:27:23 +0000 Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B757102@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Survey for final decision about per-port offload API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 01:27:30 -0000 Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 9:48 PM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde ; Jerin Jacob > ; Shijith Thotton > ; Santosh Shukla > ; Rahul Lakkireddy > ; John Daley ; Lu, > Wenzhuo ; Ananyev, Konstantin > ; Xing, Beilei ; > Zhang, Qi Z ; Wu, Jingjing ; > Adrien Mazarguil ; Nelio Laranjeiro > ; Yongseok Koh ; > Shahaf Shuler ; Tomasz Duszynski > ; Jianbo Liu ; Alejandro Lucero > ; Hemant Agrawal > ; Shreyansh Jain ; > Harish Patil ; Rasesh Mody > ; Andrew Rybchenko > ; Shrikrishna Khare ; > Maxime Coquelin ; Legacy, Allain (Wind > River) ; Richardson, Bruce > ; Gaetan Rivet ; > Olivier Matz > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API >=20 > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." >=20 > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags in > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, when call= ing > respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for > each queue. >=20 > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not repeated= in > queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html >=20 > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port offload= s in > queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? >=20 >=20 Yes. > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation and > remove the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs > switched to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, the sonner= it > is fixed, the better. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? Yes. >=20 > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at port > level, cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes. >=20 >=20 > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, i.e. every = queue > capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level only if it ca= n be > applied to a specific queue. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes. >=20 >=20 > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) Thank you >=20