From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4871A1BADF for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ABD28DC31; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.36] (ovpn-112-36.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.36]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F75B215CDC8; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:03:30 +0000 (UTC) To: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org Cc: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , Wenzhuo Lu , Konstantin Ananyev , Beilei Xing , Qi Zhang , Jingjing Wu , 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 , Allain Legacy , Bruce Richardson , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <763f46ed-1b67-8d9d-6a9b-fa4b33bbd547@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:03:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:03:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:03:37 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.6' DOMAIN:'int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'maxime.coquelin@redhat.com' RCPT:'' 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:03:38 -0000 Hi Thomas, On 03/30/2018 03:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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." > > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags > in rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, > when calling respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each queue. > > 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 > > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port > offloads in queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html > > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads > > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? > 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. > > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? > Yes > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. > > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? > Yes > 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 can be applied to a specific queue. > > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? > Yes > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) > Thank you > > Thanks, Maxime