On 8/10/2021 10:07 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:54 PM >> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; Singh, Aman Deep >> <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko >> <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; >> NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: change queue release callback >> >> On 8/10/2021 9:03 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: >>> Hi Singh and Ferruh, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 11:31 PM >>>> To: Singh, Aman Deep <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko >>>> <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Xueming(Steven) Li >>>> <xuemi...@nvidia.com> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; >>>> NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: change queue release callback >>>> >>>> On 8/9/2021 3:39 PM, Singh, Aman Deep wrote: >>>>> Hi Xueming, >>>>> >>>>> On 7/28/2021 1:10 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>>>> On 7/27/21 6:41 AM, Xueming Li wrote: >>>>>>> To align with other eth device queue configuration callbacks, >>>>>>> change RX and TX queue release callback API parameter from queue >>>>>>> object to device and queue index. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, there is no strong reasons to do it, but I think it is a >>>>>> nice cleanup to use (dev + queue index) on control path. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hopefully it will not result in any regressions. >>>>> >>>>> Combined there are 100+ API's for Rx/Tx queue_release that need to >>>>> be modified for it. >>>>> >>>>> I believe all regression possibilities here will be caught, in >>>>> compilation phase itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Same here, it is a good cleanup but there is no strong reason for it. >>>> >>>> Since it is all internal, there is no ABI restriction on the patch, >>>> and v21.11 will be full ABI break patches, to not cause conflicts with >>>> this change, what would you think to have it on v22.02? >>> >>> This patch is required by shared-rxq feature which ABI broken, target to >>> 21.11. >> >> Why it is required? > > In rx burst function, rxq object is used in data path. For best data > performance, it's shared-rxq object in case of shared rxq enabled. > I think eth api defined rxq object for performance as well, specific on data > plane. > Hardware saves port info received packet descriptor for my case. > Can't tell which device's queue with this shared rxq object, control path > can't use this shared rxq anymore, have to be specific on dev and queue id. >
I have seen shared Rx queue patch, but that just introduces the offload and doesn't have the PMD implementation, so hard to see the dependency, can you please put the pseudocode for PMDs for shared-rxq? How a queue will know if it is shared or not, during release? Btw, shared Rx doesn't mention from this dependency in the patch. >> >>> I'll do it carefully, fortunately, the change is straightforward. >>> >
