On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:20 PM Nipun Gupta <nipun.gu...@nxp.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:52 AM > > To: Nipun Gupta <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > > <jer...@marvell.com>; Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovace...@intel.com>; Ori > > Kam <or...@mellanox.com>; Bruce Richardson > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>; > > Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; Tomasz Kantecki > > <tomasz.kante...@intel.com>; Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com>; > > Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 04/11] examples/l3fwd: add ethdev setup > > based on eventdev > > > > >> >&local_port_conf); > > >> >> + if (ret < 0) > > >> >> + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, > > >> >> + "Cannot configure device: err=%d, > > >> >> port=%d\n", > > >> >> + ret, port_id); > > >> >> + > > >> > > > >> >We should be using number of RX queues as per the config option > > >> >provided in the arguments. > > >> >L3fwd is supposed to support multiple queue. Right? > > >> > > >> The entire premise of using event device is to showcase packet > > >scheduling to > > >> cores > > >> without the need for splitting packets across multiple queues. > > >> > > >> Queue config is ignored when event mode is selected. > > > > > >For atomic queues, we have single queue providing packets to a single > > >core at a time till processing on that core is completed, irrespective of > > >the flows on that hardware queue. > > >And multiple queues are required to distribute separate packets on > > >separate cores, with these atomic queues maintaining the ordering and > > >not scheduling on other core, until processing core has completed its > > >job. > > >To have this solution generic, we should also take config parameter - > > >(port, number of queues) to enable multiple ethernet RX queues. > > > > > > > Not sure I follow we connect Rx queue to an event queue which is then > > linked to multiple event ports which are polled on > > by respective cores. > > This is what we too support, but with atomic queue case the scenario gets > little complex. > Each atomic queue can be scheduled only to one event port at a time, until > all the events from > that event port are processed. Then only it can move to other event port.
This would make it a poll mode. We might as well use normal PMD + RSS for the same instead. i.e use l3fwd in poll mode. It will be the same in terms of performance. Right? > > To have separate event ports process packets at same time in atomic scenario, > multiple queues > are required. As l3fwd supports multiple queues, it seems legitimate to add > the support. > > Thanks, > Nipun > > > How would increasing Rx queues help? Distributing flows from single event > > queue to multiple event ports is the responsibility > > of Event device as per spec. > > Does DPAA/2 function differently? > > > > Regards, > > Pavan. > > > > >Regards, > > >Nipun > > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >Regards, > > >> >Nipun > > >> > > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Pavan.
