On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 12:57 +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > 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.
Hi Ferruh, finally get PMD code ported: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-September/221326.html > > > > > > > > I'll do it carefully, fortunately, the change is straightforward. > > > > > > >
