RE: cryptodev API question with out of order support

[Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>]

Hi Declan,

I see, thank you very much for the clear clarification.

BR,
Suanming

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:58 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: cryptodev API question with out of order support
> 
> Hey Suanming,
> 
> I haven't been actively involved in the development of DPDK in a number of
> years but as far as I'm aware (and I don't believe this has changed recently), out
> of order processing from the cryptodev API user perspective is not supported,
> and for most scenarios I'm aware of (for symmetric crypto processing) it would
> not be desired, as data path protocols like IPsec or TLS expect packet order to
> be maintained.
> 
> I know the crypto scheduler PMD allows out of order processing of operations
> on worker cores, when it is working in a load balancing mode, but it's default
> behaviour is to guarantee that packets/operations are returned in order to the
> user after processing.
> 
> If there are use cases for out of order processing (maybe for asymmetric
> crypto) then I expected that at a minimum a per queue pair setup option would
> be required and possibly a completion queue mechanism might be required.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Declan
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2023 09:28, Suanming Mou wrote:
> > Hi Declan,
> >
> > While reading the cryptodev API and define docs, I don’t see some
> > places mention the out of order support.
> >
> > Does current crypto enqueue and dequeue function support out of order
> > mode? Or should we add a hint capability flag for that?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> > Not sure if such topics have been discussed before, can you please
> > help to clarify?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Suanming Mou
> >