From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] New packet type query API
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:08:52 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <829b2bae-3a48-85d0-93ee-e6486726a575@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180116155532.GH4256@6wind.com>
On 01/16/2018 06:55 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> I understand the motivation behind this proposal, however since new ideas
> must be challenged, I have a few comments:
>
> - How about making packet type recognition an optional offload configurable
> per queue like any other (e.g. DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE)? That way the extra
> processing cost could be avoided for applications that do not care.
>
> - Depending on HW, packet type information inside RX descriptors may not
> necessarily fit 64-bit, or at least not without transformation. This
> transformation would still cause wasted cycles on the PMD side.
>
> - In case enable_ptype_direct is enabled, the PMD may not waste CPU cycles
> but the subsequent look-up with the proposed API would translate to a
> higher cost on the application side. As a data plane API, how does this
> benefit applications that want to retrieve packet type information?
>
> - Without a dedicated mbuf flag, an application cannot tell whether enclosed
> packet type data is in HW format. Even if present, if port information is
> discarded or becomes invalid (e.g. mbuf stored in an application queue for
> lengthy periods or passed as is to an unrelated application), there is no
> way to make sense of the data.
>
> In my opinion, mbufs should only contain data fields in a standardized
> format. Managing packet types like an offload which can be toggled at will
> seems to be the best compromise. Thoughts?
+1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-17 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-11 16:04 Qiming Yang
2018-01-16 15:55 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-01-17 8:08 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2018-01-17 14:34 ` Shahaf Shuler
2018-01-23 2:48 ` Yang, Qiming
2018-01-23 2:46 ` Yang, Qiming
2018-01-23 2:46 ` Yang, Qiming
2018-02-05 19:29 ` Adrien Mazarguil
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=829b2bae-3a48-85d0-93ee-e6486726a575@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=qiming.yang@intel.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).