From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25324A63 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:26:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2017 03:26:00 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,305,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="1178872610" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2017 03:25:59 -0700 Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.242]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:25:58 +0100 From: "Van Haaren, Harry" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Wiles, Keith" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept Thread-Index: AdLbug0EIDngSYVITLmskNXYmitsLAAmDFfAAJaZv6A= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:25:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB0525F@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB0525F@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYjhkMDdmNTItM2U5Yy00MTFmLWFiYmUtNDIwYzZiNDFmMzNjIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjVoZ0lZTXZIckRjckdkTHhvakliYmxHWW1wR3VPYlpQb0lcL1pDRCtMMTdFPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept 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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 10:26:02 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 11:23 AM > To: Van Haaren, Harry ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Jerin Jacob ; > Richardson, Bruce ; Wiles, Keith > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept > > In particular this version of the API enables applications that are not= aware of services to > > benefit from the services concept, as EAL args can be used to setup ser= vices and service > cores. > > With this design, switching to/from SW/HW PMD is transparent to the app= lication. An example > > use-case is the Eventdev HW PMD to Eventdev SW PMD that requires a serv= ice core. > > > > I have noted the implementation comments that were raised on the v1. Fo= r v2, I think our > time > > is better spent looking at the API design, and I will handle implementa= tion feedback in the > > follow-up patchset to v2 RFC. > > > > Below a summary of what we are trying to achieve, and the current API d= esign. > > Have a good weekend! Cheers, -Harry >=20 > > Looks good to me in general. > The only comment I have - do we really need to put it into rte_eal_init() > and a new EAL command-line parameter for it? > Might be better to leave it to the particular app to decide. There are a number of options here, each with its own merit: A) Services/cores config in EAL Benefit is that service functionality can be transparent to the application= . Negative is that the complexity is in EAL. B) Application configures services/cores Benefit is no added EAL complexity. Negative is that application code has t= o configure cores (duplicated per application). To answer this question, I think we need to estimate how many applications = would benefit from EAL integration and balance that against the "complexity= cost" of doing so. I do like the simplicity of option (B), however if ther= e is significant value in total transparency to the application I think (A)= is the better choice. Input on A) or B) welcomed! -Harry