Re: [dpdk-dev] TR: PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for guidelines for submission

Re: [dpdk-dev] TR: PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for guidelines for submission

[Hobywan Kenoby]

Hi Sujith,
I missed you mail! probably because of huge DPDK list activity.
As I was checking what was hapening (and expected some announcement at DPDK summit or IDF to be honest) I saw your mail.
I was thinking of the new vectorized packet handling functions exposed in ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c.
- HK


> From :ssujith@cisco.com<mailto:ssujith@cisco.com>
> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:39 AM
> To : Hobywan Kenoby; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for
> guidelines for submission
> 
> Hi Hobywan,
> 
> We’re still working on benchmarking, and would share the numbers once we are
> done with it.
> Could you please elaborate on vectorisation functions?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Sujith
> 
> From: Hobywan Kenoby <hobywank@hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank@hotmail.com>>
> Date: Friday, 11 July 2014 6:46 pm
> To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith@cisco.com<mailto:ssujith@cisco.com>>,
> "dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for
> guidelines for submission
> 
> Hi Sujith,
> 
> It makes sens, using VFIO makes a far cleaner implementation.
> 
> You worked on the performance, could you share some measurements ? Did you
> introduce vectorization functions as Intel did a while ago? There are
> allways tradeoffs between pps and latency, do you include documentation to
> configure the card for one or the other?
> 
> HK
> ________________________________
> From: ssujith@cisco.com<mailto:ssujith@cisco.com>
> To: hobywank@hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank@hotmail.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for
> guidelines for submission
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:46:08 +0000
> 
> Hi Hobywan,
> Thanks for the email !
> 
> We’ve been working on performance benchmarking.  Also, we felt that it would
> be better to push the driver after Anatoly’s patch (vfio-pci) got in so that
> we could make the necessary modification before submission.
> Now that 1.7.0 is out, we are hopeful of submitting the patch soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Sujith
> 
> From: Hobywan Kenoby <hobywank@hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank@hotmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 10 July 2014 1:37 am
> To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith@cisco.com<mailto:ssujith@cisco.com>>,
> "dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for
> guidelines for submission
> 
> Hi Sujith,
> 
> It was exciting to see open source code coming from Cisco ensuring a DPDK
> application can run on any platform and with any card....
> I haven't seen your patch yet. What happened?
> 
> HK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date : Wed, 28 May 2014 08:06
> 
> > From : dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org]
> 
> > To : dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> 
> > Subject : [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for
> guidelines
> 
> > for submission
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Hi all,
> 
> >
> 
> > We have been working on development of poll-mode driver for Cisco VIC
> 
> > Ethernet NIC and integration of it with DPDK.  We would like to submit
> this
> 
> > poll-mode driver (ENIC PMD) to the DPDK community so that it could be part
> 
> > of the DPDK tree.
> 
> >
> 
> > Could someone please provide the guidelines and steps to do this?  As of
> 
> > now, ENIC PMD is being tested with DPDK 1.6.0r2.  Is it alright to submit
> a
> 
> > patch for DPDK 1.6.0r2?
> 
> >
> 
> > One aspect of ENIC PMD is that it works with VFIO-PCI and not UIO.  Hope
> 
> > this is acceptable.  The following thread in dpdk-dev influenced this
> 
> > decision.
> 
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2013-July/000373.html
> 
> >
> 
> > ENIC PMD uses one interrupt per interface and it is used by the NIC for
> 
> > signalling the driver in case of any error.  Since this does not come in
> 
> > the fast path, it should be acceptable, isn¹t it?
> 
> >
> 
> > Please give your suggestions and comments.
> 
> >
> 
> > Thanks,
> 
> > -Sujith
> 
>