Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_ring work

[Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>]

> > >
> > > Hi Honnappa,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Konstantin,
> > > > 	Just to make sure we are coordinating the work on rte_ring, I
> > > > plan to get the following things done for 20.08. Please let me
> > > > know if you have any
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > Thanks for sharing your plans.
> > > In general, looks reasonable to me.
> > > Few comments/questions below.
> > > From my side - I have just few rte_ring related plans for 20.08:
> > > 1) Try to integrate hts/rts ring mode into mempool_ring (new flags
> > > for mempool_create or so).
> > > 2) Use peek API into crypto/scheduler PMD.
> > > 3) Plus few ideas how to improve ring performance in particular
> > > usage scenarios.
> > > Don't know yet would it boil to something real or not (might be new
> > > sync mode or so).
> > >
> > > > 1) Remove experimental tag on rte_ring_xxx_elem APIs - they have
> > > > been
> > > around for 2 releases now.
> > > > 2) Make the legacy APIs use elem APIs
> > > > 3) Check the possibility to remove rte_ring_generic.h implementation.
> > > > This can be done if the legacy API performance between the generic
> > > > and
> > > C11 implementations is not much.
> > > > 4) Peek APIs for RTS
> > >
> > > Due to nature of RTS I don't think it is possible to implement peek API for it.
> > > But might be I am missing something here.
> > I think we have talked about it, probably a patch will make it clear.
> 
> Ok, will wait for the patch then.
> 
> > >
> > > BTW, do you guys plan to continue with WFE API adoption in rte_ring?
> > Yes, we plan to. I thought you might not be interested in it and
> > removed it here. There are new requirements on the rte_wait_until_xxx API
> due to the new sync modes. We might have to revisit the API definition.
> >
> > >
> > > > Some cleanup activity (assuming above things are successful)
> > > >
> > > > 1) Remove the detailed comments on top of the internal functions -
> > > > it is hard to maintain, the parameters are already
> > > > self-explanatory
> > > > 3) Files need some re-org
> > > > 	a) rte_ring.h, rte_ring_hts.h, rte_ring_rts.h, rte_ring_peek.h -
> > > > will have legacy format APIs written as wrappers around xxx_elem APIs
> > > > 	b) rte_ring_elem.h, rte_ring_hts_elem.h, rte_ring_rts_elem.h,
> > > rte_ring_peek_elem.h - will have xxx_elem APIs
> > > > 	c) ring_elem_pvt.h, ring_hts_elem_pvt.h, ring_rts_elem_pvt.h,
> > > ring_peek_elem_pvt.h
> > > > 		- these will contain the internal functions including the c11
> > > functions to manipulate the head/tail pointers.
> > > > 		  The files with xxx_c11_mem.h will disappear. Make sure
> > > private
> > > > functions have __rte prefix
> > >
> > > Basically you'd plan to:
> > > a) rename rte_ring_*_c11_mem.h  to rte_ring_*_pvt.h
> > > b) get rid of rte_ring_generic.h
> > > Correct?
> > Yes
> 
> If there would be no perf drops, I have no objections.
Agree
> Though recently there was a discussion is it ok to remove
> dpdk installable headers (even ones marked as internal).
Do you remember any conclusions? I tried to search, could not find the discussion.