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 at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com> > Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:39 AM > To : Hobywan Kenoby; dev at 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 at hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank at hotmail.com>> > Date: Friday, 11 July 2014 6:46 pm > To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at > cisco.com>>, > "dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>" <dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at > 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 at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com> > To: hobywank at hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank at hotmail.com>; > dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at 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 at hotmail.com<mailto:hobywank at hotmail.com>> > Date: Thursday, 10 July 2014 1:37 am > To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at > cisco.com>>, > "dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>" <dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at > 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 at dpdk.org] > > > To : dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at 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, isn?t it? > > > > > > Please give your suggestions and comments. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Sujith > >
