Re: [RFC v2] ethdev: an API for cache stashing hints

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 7/26/2024 9:01 PM, Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage wrote:
>> rte_eth_X_get_capability()
>>
> 
> rte_eth_dev_stashing_hints_discover is somewhat similar.
> 
>> Instead of adding RTE_ETH_DEV_CAPA_ macro and contaminating
>> 'rte_eth_dev_info' with this edge use case, what do you think follow above
>> design and have dedicated get capability API?
> 
> I think it's better to have a dedicated API, given that we already have a fine
> grained capabilities discovery function. I will add this feedback to V3 of the
> RFC.
> 
>>
>> 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?

[1]
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=32851