From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20064.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.64]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4FA1F28 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:44:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Mellanox.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=rpWFqLJPhDC1uDgXDMzWoyCvxEgHYAs3HaV36/bp0vg=; b=NKYHRH82VCsTGKI7bq7sl0Xgq8ryq45/AKJaZ0R9Tw0oc0JsNYnq0tG9BILlD8xXCU4LH3wliAfZvEuMuCSKmccw5Gp673UDChMzO0a32oWvMAA+Lw7JO8qoCaO8rJwkVnk5R7AUuiFiE3r+Oq7JYOR4gPKHx1IFgULSJqCpbRA= Received: from DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.134.109.15) by DB7PR05MB4348.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.134.108.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.609.10; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 04:44:20 +0000 Received: from DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808d:386e:26f3:859f]) by DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808d:386e:26f3:859f%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0631.013; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 04:44:20 +0000 From: Shahaf Shuler 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 , =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio_Laranjeiro?= , Yongseok Koh , "Tomasz Duszynski" , Jianbo Liu , "Alejandro Lucero" , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , "Harish Patil" , Rasesh Mody , "Andrew Rybchenko" , Shrikrishna Khare , Maxime Coquelin , Allain Legacy , Bruce Richardson , Gaetan Rivet , Olivier Matz Thread-Topic: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Thread-Index: AQHTyC3CbGCTyIXro0mFjUrcVyTSnaPrVRuA Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 04:44:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=shahafs@mellanox.com; x-originating-ip: [31.154.10.107] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB7PR05MB4348; 7:ovRI9W2kdRA1hkogxFtSmSlVAFJ8eK69ljJg2k+mH1XQb/LOdyynbeCQvAi7Y2+0JLZ6GM3iRvT0w0fKVKZOJDRXkfAligN+oR2oZmIqCpiPtErlRkKrl23ESKRK/YOpk7axIu9a2NFPfkWBDxXyja1831xkcTOMJIXvZv/pUoxv/Ab8G/5b/ut5sDFACe3TJm9+WEoLqiOcOL4VRtONJ5EzeAgYMSPoiVE3qV6tjgoApb1uAD+9jZvRxODPeepA x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f1432ee6-b81a-48fe-edcb-08d5978b3c29 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DB7PR05MB4348; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR05MB4348: x-ld-processed: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(189930954265078)(45079756050767); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231221)(944501327)(52105095)(6055026)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DB7PR05MB4348; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB7PR05MB4348; x-forefront-prvs: 06290ECA9D x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39860400002)(39380400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(486005)(54906003)(8656006)(102836004)(186003)(2906002)(26005)(6116002)(6246003)(97736004)(3280700002)(561944003)(45080400002)(4326008)(33656002)(316002)(966005)(6436002)(86362001)(105586002)(11346002)(9686003)(486005)(53936002)(55016002)(5250100002)(2501003)(59450400001)(478600001)(3660700001)(6306002)(6506007)(68736007)(25786009)(7736002)(305945005)(446003)(66066001)(3846002)(7416002)(76176011)(476003)(106356001)(229853002)(110136005)(5660300001)(7696005)(99286004)(8936002)(74316002)(81166006)(81156014)(14454004)(39060400002)(2900100001)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB7PR05MB4348; H:DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: mellanox.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 0YRhHQmVEF2k0TK7nfYcR32YFXEP2nZWpC16gO16+S3FdmjTVkz/QVwo//rFLon3woazuQdahOS7mtjBTPa7lRqVRxoZkzksIfKG1m3hac827dHcNyOxv1ZuvK2rDozZ/cOnMLXoFSwZSFx9ENdyt0w3QU78LDutcRl4JDgwUQ23htpFPnDm+OtJ9bgRBqTT7hrxlkrmxgtGqhY0tIK4MnZtSlfaFpdIHYLxjIhsD2+2H4o9U7PoP4rKqxt5rJ/91lzutCjm+/siPpXj0NbmdxVQRKy4w1SbBkS6SOPwfIssT3iK6h4aeu63tPLYPN6RRCC6k3noRNAodBi7I/BdzKChXOhoH4dlTXUP8CuWYfV9HlDiOJ4W1q8VbOj7m8BOEChEFyHscVlZoIMjlrsuscpKfzFx9mKxyvhp5wcVaEQ= spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Mellanox.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f1432ee6-b81a-48fe-edcb-08d5978b3c29 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2018 04:44:20.5609 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR05MB4348 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: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 04:44:26 -0000 Friday, March 30, 2018 4:48 PM, Thomas Monjalon: > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API >=20 > 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." >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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: > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F > %2Fdpdk.org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2018- > March%2F094023.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb2a > e36d768424c9e616308d59644e2a7%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b > %7C0%7C0%7C636580144980414466&sdata=3DRe2xM9u5jJr4M1PDTn5gE9mp22 > NmBI%2Bwa2GFPmUzq38%3D&reserved=3D0 >=20 > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port offload= s in > queue offloads: > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F > %2Fdpdk.org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2018- > March%2F092978.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb2a > e36d768424c9e616308d59644e2a7%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b > %7C0%7C0%7C636580144980414466&sdata=3DxaUM8jcVl9gf3e%2By9geZDPpO > 1RJ5%2FXWJwA%2BpGp54pNs%3D&reserved=3D0 >=20 > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads >=20 > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? Yes. >=20 >=20 > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation and > remove the checks in PMDs. And to update applications and examples in the tree to set the offloads acc= ording to above change.=20 > 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. >=20 > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? >=20 >=20 > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at port > level, cannot be disabled at queue level. >=20 > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes=20 >=20 >=20 > 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 ca= n be > applied to a specific queue. >=20 > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? No.=20 The documentation should describe the API from the application side, and no= t provide guidelines for the PMDs implementation.=20 If missing, we should clarify more about what queue and port offload means.= Something like: "When port offload is enabled, the offload applies on the port along with a= ll of its associated queues" and "When queue offload is enabled the offload, the offload applies only on the= specific queue." The PMDs then will decide how they report the different offloads they offer= .=20 >=20 >=20 > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) Thank you >=20