On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:03:31 +0000 Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 19:26 > > To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Slava Ovsiienko > > <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Matan Azrad > > <ma...@mellanox.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Andrew Rybchenko > > <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Ajit Khaparde > > <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>; Maxime Coquelin > > <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; > > David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to ethdev rxconf structure > > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:58:22 +0100 > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8/4/2020 2:32 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:36 PM Slava Ovsiienko > > <viachesl...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi, Jerin, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the comment, please, see below. > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > >>> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 14:57 > > > >>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com> > > > >>> Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; > > > >>> Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon > > > >>> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; > > > >>> Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Andrew > > Rybchenko > > > >>> <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Ajit Khaparde > > > >>> <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>; Maxime Coquelin > > > >>> <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Olivier Matz > > > >>> <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; David Marchand > > > >>> <david.march...@redhat.com> > > > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to ethdev rxconf > > > >>> structure > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:28 PM Viacheslav Ovsiienko > > > >>> <viachesl...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The DPDK datapath in the transmit direction is very flexible. > > > >>>> The applications can build multisegment packets and manages > > > >>>> almost all data aspects - the memory pools where segments are > > > >>>> allocated from, the segment lengths, the memory attributes like > > external, registered, etc. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In the receiving direction, the datapath is much less flexible, > > > >>>> the applications can only specify the memory pool to configure > > > >>>> the receiving queue and nothing more. In order to extend the > > > >>>> receiving datapath capabilities it is proposed to add the new > > > >>>> fields into rte_eth_rxconf structure: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> struct rte_eth_rxconf { > > > >>>> ... > > > >>>> uint16_t rx_split_num; /* number of segments to split */ > > > >>>> uint16_t *rx_split_len; /* array of segment lengthes */ > > > >>>> struct rte_mempool **mp; /* array of segment memory pools */ > > > >>> > > > >>> The pool has the packet length it's been configured for. > > > >>> So I think, rx_split_len can be removed. > > > >> > > > >> Yes, it is one of the supposed options - if pointer to array of > > > >> segment lengths is NULL , the queue_setup() could use the lengths from > > > >> > > the pool's properties. > > > >> But we are talking about packet split, in general, it should not > > > >> depend on pool properties. What if application provides the single > > > >> pool and just wants to have the tunnel header in the first dedicated > > mbuf? > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> This feature also available in Marvell HW. So it not specific to one > > vendor. > > > >>> Maybe we could just the use case mention the use case in the > > > >>> depreciation notice and the tentative change in rte_eth_rxconf and > > > >>> exact details can be worked out at the time of implementation. > > > >>> > > > >> So, if I understand correctly, the struct changes in the commit > > > >> message should be marked as just possible implementation? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > We may need to have a detailed discussion on the correct abstraction > > > > for various HW is available with this feature. > > > > > > > > On Marvell HW, We can configure TWO pools for given eth Rx queue. > > > > One pool can be configured as a small packet pool and other one as > > > > large packet pool. > > > > And there is a threshold value to decide the pool between small and > > large. > > > > For example: > > > > - The small pool is configured 2k > > > > - The large pool is configured with 10k > > > > - And if the threshold value is configured as 2k. > > > > Any packet size <=2K will land in small pool and others in a large pool. > > > > The use case, we are targeting is to save the memory space for jumbo > > frames. > > > > > > Out of curiosity, do you provide two different buffer address in the > > > descriptor and HW automatically uses one based on the size, or driver > > > uses one of the pools based on the configuration and possible largest > > > packet size? > > > > I am all for allowing more configuration of buffer pool. > > But don't want that to be exposed as a hardware specific requirement in the > > API for applications. The worst case would be if your API changes required: > > > > if (strcmp(dev->driver_name, "marvell") == 0) { > > // make another mempool for this driver > > > I thought about adding some other segment attributes, vendor specific. > We could describe the segments with some descriptor structure (size, pool) > and add flags field to one. The proposals from other vendors are welcome. > Please no snowflake API's "are driver is special"... Think of how it can fit into a general model. Also, just because your hardware has a special feature does not mean the DPDK has to support it!