DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: <dev@dpdk.org>, <techboard@dpdk.org>,
	<stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Andrew Rybchenko" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Cc: "Patrick Robb" <probb@iol.unh.edu>
Subject: Use of TX offload flags MBUF_FAST_FREE and MULTI_SEGS
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 16:51:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F654A3@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aN-Use5rigF3tQc9@bricha3-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, 3 October 2025 11.18
> Subject: Minutes of techboard meeting, 2025-10-01

> * Use of FAST_FREE and multi-buffer/scattered mbuf flags
>   - The flags for enabling fast-free and supporting multi-mbuf packets
> are
>     now documented incompatible
>   - Previously they were not defined as incompatible, but that seems to
>     have been assumed for some usages.
>   - Techboard discussed how best to resolve this incompatibility with
>     regards to:
>     - ensuring correctness
>     - avoiding major churn to DPDK code
>     - avoiding churn to end-user code
>   - Options discussed:
>     1 change definition back to not have the settings incompatible:
> this
>       necessitates checking drivers for correctness
>     2 keep as explicitly incompatible and report error if both
> specified:
>       this could break end-user apps, and requires changes to example
> apps
>     3 drop the fast-free flag if multi-segment mbufs are also
> specified:
>       "hides" the issue, but probably minimises changes. Would need to
>       decide whether the dropping of flag done in drivers vs ethdev
> level.
>       Pros and cons to both options. Needs clear documenting.
>   - No firm decision reached, will discuss more over email.

IMO, the patch [1] making MBUF_FAST_FREE and MULTI_SEGS explicitly incompatible should be reverted, at least for RC1.
That will take the project back to the state it was in before we started this discussion.
And all the examples broken by the patch (because they use both TX offloads) will not need fixing.

[1]: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20250803194218.683318-3-mb@smartsharesystems.com/


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-10-06 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-03  9:17 Minutes of techboard meeting, 2025-10-01 Bruce Richardson
2025-10-06 14:40 ` Morten Brørup
2025-10-07  7:58   ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-10-08 12:36     ` Use of TX offload flags MBUF_FAST_FREE and MULTI_SEGS Morten Brørup
2025-10-06 14:51 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2025-10-06 14:59   ` Ivan Malov

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=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F654A3@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
    --to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=probb@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).