> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob
>
> So far, I have received constructive feedback from Intel, NXP and Linaro
> folks.
> Let me know, if anyone else interested in contributing to the definition of
> eventdev?
>
> If there are no major issues in proposed spec, then Cavium would like work on
> implementing and up-streaming the common code(lib/librte_eventdev/) and
> an associated HW driver.(Requested minor changes of v2 will be addressed
> in next version).
Hi All,
I will propose a minor change to the rte_event struct, allowing some bits to be
implementation specific. Currently the rte_event struct has no space to allow
an implementation store any metadata about the event. For software performance
it would be really helpful if there are some bits available for the
implementation to keep some flags about each event.
I suggest to rework the struct as below which opens 6 bits that were otherwise
wasted, and define them as implementation specific. By implementation specific
it is understood that the implementation can overwrite any information stored
in those bits, and the application must not expect the data to remain after the
event is scheduled.
OLD:
struct rte_event {
uint32_t flow_id:24;
uint32_t queue_id:8;
uint8_t sched_type; /* Note only 2 bits of 8 are required */
NEW:
struct rte_event {
uint32_t flow_id:24;
uint32_t sched_type:2; /* reduced size : but 2 bits is enough for the
enqueue types Ordered,Atomic,Parallel.*/
uint32_t implementation:6; /* available for implementation specific
metadata */
uint8_t queue_id; /* still 8 bits as before */
Thoughts? -Harry
