From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30207235 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 23:19:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Sep 2017 14:19:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,418,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="1196935409" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2017 14:19:20 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.194]) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.185]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:19:18 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Kushal Gautam CC: "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Query: decouple the driver and library components Thread-Index: AQHTMYk/P2qfPnsbeUeGwvA2i+gWiKK9LCsA Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:19:17 +0000 Message-ID: <7C1F117E-40E8-4D5E-BC5A-80A4E91F532C@intel.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.200.58] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Query: decouple the driver and library components X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:19:22 -0000 > On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Kushal Gautam wrot= e: >=20 > Hi: >=20 > I am new to DPDK. I had been looking at the i40e driver implementation of > DPDK. I see that the code is entirely revamped as compared to the origina= l > i40e-driver. >=20 > My query is that is it possible for me to use this i40e driver(in dpdk > source code package) without other non-essential dependencies or in plain > words, can I decouple these components ? I am more interested in the > pollmode driver. My concern was on the jitter introduced by regular > drivers. I did modify the original i40e driver for this, but things did n= ot > work out as I wanted to. >=20 > I understand that this driver package depends on various other libraries > that are bundled with the source code. So, could I decouple these > components ( for example; the libraries and the driver module) ? DPDK PMDs are not standalone drivers and do require a fair number of DPDK h= eaders and libraries. The i40e I believe does have core set of files that a= re generic across a number of OSes and systems. Intel provides the core cod= e and DPDK PMD integrates with this core code by writing the DPDK PMD routi= nes. I guess it is possible to take the core code and try to integrate to t= hat level. As for taking the DPDK PMD as is will not be a simple task IMHO. DPDK does provide external memory management for hardware and software desi= gns in the mempool, which could allow you to add you memory allocation and = your mbuf like wrapper around that memory. This was why it was added to DPD= K to help developers with their own system to pull in DPDK for the PMDs. Some parts of DPDK are kind of standalone, but no effort has been done to m= ake them completely standalone libraries. IMO making it completely standalo= ne set of libraries will add overhead (reduce performance) and a lot pain f= or the developers/users of DPDK integrate existing designs. >=20 > Any information on this would be very helpful. >=20 > Thanks, > Kushal. Regards, Keith