From: "Joseph, Anoob" <Anoob.Joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
To: "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
Ankur Dwivedi <ankur.dwivedi@caviumnetworks.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom requirement
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:26:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d67077ce-f9fe-0090-9982-9f78c4f5bfef@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cba4dbee-102e-d6af-284f-3d490123d5f0@intel.com>
Hi Declan,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
On 26-06-2018 15:42, Doherty, Declan wrote:
> External Email
>
> On 19/06/2018 7:26 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
>> Enabling crypto devs to specify the minimum headroom and tailroom it
>> expects in the mbuf. For net PMDs, standard headroom has to be honoured
>> by applications, which is not strictly followed for crypto devs. This
>
> How is this done for NET PMDs, I don't see anything explicit in the
> ehtdev API for specification of headroom requirements.
In rte_mbuf.h, the minimum size required for packets involved in rx/tx
is specified and that considers headroom also. Applications usually use
these default macros while creating mbufs which are involved in rx/tx.
https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h#n411
>
>> prevents crypto devs from using free space in mbuf (available as
>> head/tailroom) for internal requirements in crypto operations. Addition
>> of head/tailroom requirement will help PMDs to communicate such
>> requirements to the application.
>>
>> The availability and use of head/tailroom is an optimization if the
>> hardware supports use of head/tailroom for crypto-op info. For devices
>> that do not support using the head/tailroom, they can continue to
>> operate
>> without any performance-drop.
>>
> Is there any variations in requirements for terms headroom/tailroom on a
> per algorithmic basis or is it purely for the device?
It is purely per device basis. The device can specify upper bounds for
the head/tailroom. A device that even specified the room, may not even
use the entire room in all cases. So it doesn't have to be algo specific.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
>> ---
>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
>> lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h | 6 ++++++
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index 1ce692e..a547289 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -122,3 +122,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
>> - Function ``rte_cryptodev_get_private_session_size()`` will be
>> deprecated
>> in 18.05, and it gets replaced with
>> ``rte_cryptodev_sym_get_private_session_size()``.
>> It will be removed in 18.08.
>> + - New field, ``min_headroom_req``, added in ``rte_cryptodev_info``
>> structure. It will be
>> + added in 18.11.
>> + - New field, ``min_tailroom_req``, added in ``rte_cryptodev_info``
>> structure. It will be
>> + added in 18.11.
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> index 92ce6d4..fa944b8 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>> @@ -382,6 +382,12 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_info {
>> unsigned max_nb_queue_pairs;
>> /**< Maximum number of queues pairs supported by device. */
>>
>> + uint32_t min_headroom_req;
>> + /**< Minimum mbuf headroom required by device */
>> +
>> + uint32_t min_tailroom_req;
>> + /**< Minimum mbuf tailroom required by device */
>> +
>> struct {
>> unsigned max_nb_sessions;
>> /**< Maximum number of sessions supported by device. */
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-28 2:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-19 6:26 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] add head/tailroom requirement for crypto PMDs Anoob Joseph
2018-06-19 6:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom requirement Anoob Joseph
2018-06-21 14:24 ` Akhil Goyal
2018-06-22 6:52 ` Joseph, Anoob
2018-06-22 10:03 ` Akhil Goyal
2018-06-26 10:12 ` Doherty, Declan
2018-06-28 2:56 ` Joseph, Anoob [this message]
2018-06-28 11:41 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-06-28 11:59 ` Joseph, Anoob
2018-06-19 6:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] app/crypto-perf: honour cryptodev's min headroom/tailroom Anoob Joseph
2018-06-28 11:42 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/3] add head/tailroom requirement for crypto PMDs Anoob Joseph
2018-07-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom requirement Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 10:26 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 10:50 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-07-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/3] app/crypto-perf: honour cryptodev's min headroom/tailroom Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 11:07 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 11:16 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 11:48 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 12:23 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 13:27 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 14:08 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-07-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] test/crypto: skip validation of head/tailroom used by PMD Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 14:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] add head/tailroom requirement for crypto PMDs Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 14:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom requirement Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 14:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] app/crypto-perf: honour cryptodev's min headroom/tailroom Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 14:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] test/crypto: skip validation of head/tailroom used by PMD Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 14:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] crypto/scheduler: add minimum head/tailroom requirement Anoob Joseph
2018-07-10 17:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] add head/tailroom requirement for crypto PMDs De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-07-10 17:29 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d67077ce-f9fe-0090-9982-9f78c4f5bfef@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=ankur.dwivedi@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).