<snip> > > > > > > > There was a comment to remove the TLV length. I will do that > > > > > next version with implementation. > > > > > > > > > > Identified the following set of work for this. > > > > > > > > > > 1) Common code at lib/dwa/ > > > > > 2) Marvell DPU based driver at drivers/dwa/cnxk/ > > > > > 3) Test application at app/test-dwa/ > > > > > 4) It is possible to have an SW driver(To allow non-specialized > > > > > HW to use the > > > > > framework) for this by: > > > > > a) Emulate DWA HW as a separate DPDK process > > > > > b) Add drivers/dwa/sw/ and use memif driver so to create a > > > > > communication channel between emulated DWA HW process and > DPDK > > > application. > > > > Why use memif driver? Why not ring-pmd? > > > > > > Planning to emulation DWA accelerator functional model as a separate > > > DPDK process in SW case. > > You mean the primary and secondary processes correct? > > Primary and Primary. (DWA emulation as a separate primary process to mimic > the real-world scenario) > > > > > > Therefore memif is the ideal choice as it supports zero-copy of the > > > data as well. > > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/memif.html > > Zero-copy in memif is nothing but exchanging pointers to shared data. > > The rings work across the primary and secondary processes and are always > zero-copy. > > We are doing some perf comparisons between memif and rings, will let you > know once we have the data. > > Ok. > I think between primary to primary memif will be required. Agree, memif is easier/required between primary to primary. But, using it with zero-copy would need additional code on the application part in this scenario. The memory being shared needs to be mapped in both the processes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) Add drivers/dwa/sw/profiles//l3fwd - To implement l3fwd > > > > > profile using DPDK libraries for SW driver. > > > > > > > > > > I think, Item (4) aka SW drivers as useful(We don't need to > > > > > implement for all profiles, I think, just for l3fwd it make > > > > > sense to add, to allow to use of the framework in just SW mode). > > > > > Is there any opinion on adding item (4) in DPDK? I saw mixed > > > > > opinions earlier on this. I would like to understand, Is there > > > > > any objection to doing > > > > > item(4) in DPDK as it needs a good amount of work and I don't > > > > > want to do throw it away if the community doesn't like this. > > > > > Any opinion? > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html > > > > > > > > > <snip>
