Hi Konstantin,
On 28-06-2018 17:14, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph, Anoob [mailto:anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:59 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Sunil Kumar Kori
<sunil.k...@nxp.com>; Richardson, Bruce
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; De
Lara Guarch, Pablo
<pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>
Cc: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Narayana Prasad
<narayanaprasad.athr...@caviumnetworks.com>; Rao, Nikhil
<nikhil....@intel.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com>;
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper
Hi Konstantin,
On 28-06-2018 16:17, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
Hi Anoob,
-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Joseph, Anoob
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:43 AM
To: Sunil Kumar Kori <sunil.k...@nxp.com>; Richardson, Bruce
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob
<jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
<pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>
Cc: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Narayana Prasad
<narayanaprasad.athr...@caviumnetworks.com>; Rao,
Nikhil
<nikhil....@intel.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com>;
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper
Hi Sunil,
On 27-06-2018 11:50, Sunil Kumar Kori wrote:
External Email
Regards
Sunil Kumar
-----Original Message-----
From: Anoob Joseph [mailto:anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob
<jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; Pablo de Lara
<pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>
Cc: Anoob Joseph <anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com>; Hemant Agrawal
<hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Narayana Prasad
<narayanaprasad.athr...@caviumnetworks.com>; Nikhil Rao
<nikhil....@intel.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh
<pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com>; Sunil Kumar Kori
<sunil.k...@nxp.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [PATCH 01/20] eventdev: add files for eventmode helper
Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com>
---
lib/librte_eventdev/Makefile | 2 ++
lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.c | 7 +++++++
lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.h | 6 ++++++
lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper_internal.h | 6 ++++++
4 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.c
create mode 100644 lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper.h
create mode 100644 lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventmode_helper_internal.h
Having a separate helper library to configure eventdev may be a overhead to the
application
as application needs to understand main DPDK API as well as helper routines.
It can be kept in application as a separate file.
For one application we could add a new file, but if we are to enable
event mode with multiple applications, wouldn't this be duplication of
lot of code? Considering that I haven't added the required parsing
routines, the code additions in one application to make it eventdriven
would be huge.
I do agree that making this as a library poses its own challenges, but
do you have something better in mind? Another option we can think of is
making all these changes part of some common headers and then each
application can include and start using these functions. I'm fine with
any approach, but we need to consider making at-least l3fwd &
ipsec-secgw also event driven.
A quick q - does it mean that l3fwd and ipsec-secgw would become event driven
only?
Or it would be possible to choose (at startup or at build time) between current
and new
behavior?
The mode would be chosen with CL option "--transfer-mode <MODE>". When
MODE=0, the application will run in existing (poll) mode. When MODE=1,
the application would run in event mode. In that case only, event
device, eth rx adapter etc would be initialized and used.
Ok sounds good to me.
Sample usage: ./l2fwd <EAL options> -- <app options> -- --transfer-mode
0 #for existing behavior
Right now mode is selected during startup. Do you think build time is
better?
No, I am quite happy with suggested approach.
My only concern would be to keep intact existing functionality/performance
and minimize changes in the existing code.
Thanks
Konstantin
Existing functionality/performance would be intact. That was the whole
idea with the helper function additions. Following would be a rough
estimate of the additions,
1. Call to the helper function to print the usage in app_usage
2. Call to the helper function to parse the args and return the
generated "conf"
3. Call to the helper function for initializing devs based on conf (when
poll mode, this will return immediately)
4. Launch worker based on conf. When it's poll mode, call the existing
poll mode worker.
Hope this approach is fine even when extended to other apps.
Thanks,
Anoob
