> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 4:30 AM > To: Horton, Remy <remy.hor...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pat...@intel.com>; Thomas > Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 5/6] lib: added new library for latency > stats > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:19:32PM +0000, Remy Horton wrote: > > From: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pat...@intel.com> > > > > Add a library designed to calculate latency statistics and report them > > to the application when queried. The library measures minimum, average > > and maximum latencies, and jitter in nano seconds. The current > > implementation supports global latency stats, i.e. per application > stats. > > > > Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pat...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Remy Horton <remy.hor...@intel.com> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 4 + > > config/common_base | 5 + > > doc/api/doxy-api-index.md | 1 + > > doc/api/doxy-api.conf | 1 + > > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst | 5 + > > lib/Makefile | 1 + > > lib/librte_latencystats/Makefile | 57 +++ > > lib/librte_latencystats/rte_latencystats.c | 389 > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/librte_latencystats/rte_latencystats.h | 146 ++++++++ > > .../rte_latencystats_version.map | 10 + > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 3 + > > It is a value added feature for DPDK. But what is the plan for > incorporating the mbuf change? I have 8 month old mbuf change for ARM for > natural alignment. If we are accepting any mbuf change then we need to > include outstanding mbuf changes to avoid future ABI breakage. > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ >
Hi Jerin, As far as I know the plan was to reach some sort of consensus on the mbuf structure at the DPDK Userspace 2016, during and after Olivier's presentation and then to make those changes during 17.02. However, I believe Olivier had other work commitments in this release and wasn't able to work on the mbuf changes. The above mbuf change (and addition at the end of the struct) should have gone into that mbuf rework, along with your changes. However, since the mbuf rework didn't happen we need to add the field in this release. I guess the difference between the above change and your change is that the latter is more complex and potentially affect performance, and as such makes more sense as part of a rework. Perhaps we, as a community, should commit to the mbuf rework in 17.05 and make sure it gets done. John
