> -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:39 PM > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Pavan Nikhilesh > Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; step...@networkplumber.org; > arybche...@solarflare.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > tho...@monjalon.net; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Richardson, > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Neil Horman > <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; > Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovace...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [patch v3] doc: announce API change in ethdev > offload flags > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jerin,
Hi Konstantin, > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > Add new offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > > > ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS`` > > > > and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK``. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > > > > Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > --- > > > > v3 Changes: > > > > - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS -> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH (anndrew). > > > > > > > > v2 Changes: > > > > - Reword for clarity. > > > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > index 37b8592b6..056c5709f 100644 > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > @@ -78,3 +78,16 @@ Deprecation Notices > > > > to set new power environment if power environment was already > > > initialized. > > > > In this case the function will return -1 unless the environment > > > > is unset > > > first > > > > (using ``rte_power_unset_env``). Other function usage scenarios > > > > will not > > > change. > > > > + > > > > +* ethdev: New offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > > > > +``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH`` > > > > + and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK`` will be added in 19.11. > > > > > > One question about DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE: > > > Does it mean that new ol_flags value (PKT_RX_PTYPE) will be > > > introduced to indicate that mbuf.packet_type value is set? > > > Or PMD will have to set mbuf.packet_type to zero, when > > > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE was not enabled by user? > > > > I was thinking when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE is set > > - mbuf.packet_type will be valid and mbuf.packet_type will have parsed > packet type. > > If not set > > - mbuf.packet_type can be anything application should not use > mbuf.packet_type field. > > But in that case, we do need a new value for ol_flags, PKT_RX_PTYPE or so, > right? Since application has two knobs rte_eth_dev_get_supported_ptypes() and DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE. We may not need to new ol_flags for this change. Right? i.e if application sets the DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE, The application will get the parsed ptypes by the driver(= rte_eth_dev_get_supported_ptypes()). So there is no scope ambiguity. Right? > > > > > This will avoid writes 0 to mbuf.packet_type and packet_type parsing if > offload is not set. > > > > > > > If so, what is the advantage? > > > Again in that case, would it be more plausible to introduce something > > > like: > > > rte_eth_dev_set_supported_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t > > > ptype_mask); instead of DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE? > > > > Any scheme is fine where we can skip the write 0 to mbuf.packet_type > > and packet_type parsing If application is NOT interested in packet_type. > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > + This will allow application to enable or disable PMDs from > > > > + updating ``rte_mbuf`` fields ``rte_mbuf::packet_type``, > > > > + ``rte_mbuf::hash::rss`` and ``rte_mbuf::hash::fdir`` respectively. > > > > + This scheme will allow PMDs to avoid writes to ``rte_mbuf`` > > > > + fields on Rx and thereby improve Rx performance if application > wishes do so. > > > > + In 19.11 PMDs will still update the fields even when the > > > > + offloads are not enabled. > > > > + The exact semantics of the flags will be worked out later > > > > + either by making them negative offloads to avoid application > > > > + change or positive offload to align with existing offload flag > semantics. > > > > -- > > > > 2.17.1
