-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:22:46 +0530 > From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > To: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com>, > olivier.m...@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org > CC: jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow application set mempool handle > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/45.8.0 > > On 6/1/2017 1:35 PM, Santosh Shukla wrote: > > Some platform can have two different NICs for example external PCI Intel > > 40G card and Integrated NIC like vNIC/octeontx/dpaa2. > > > > Both NICs like to use their preferred pool e.g. external PCI card/ vNIC's > > preferred pool would be the ring based pool and octeontx/dpaa2 preferred > > would > > be ext-mempools. > > Right now, Framework doesn't support such case. Only one pool can be > > used across two different NIC's. For that, user has to statically set > > CONFIG_RTE_MEMPOOL_DEFAULT_OPS=<pool-name>. > > > > So proposing two approaches: > > Patch 1) Introducing eal option --pkt-mempool=<pool-name> > > Patch 2) Introducing ethdev API called _get_preferred_pool(), where PMD > > driver > > gets a chance to advertise their pool capability to the application. And > > based > > on that hint- application creates pools for that driver. > > > The idea is good. it will help the vendors with hw mempool support. > > On a similar line, I also submitted a patch to check the existence of a > mempool instance. > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15877/ > > Option 1) requires manual knowledge of underlying NIC and different commands > for different machines. > > Option 2) this will help more as it allows the application to take decision > autonomously. > > In addition to it, we can also extend the overall MEMPOOL_OPS support. > 3) currently we support defining only one "RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS" > this can be supported to publish a priority list of MEMPOOL_OPS in > config. if one is not available, application can try the next one in > priority list as supported by the platform. > > 4) we can also try something, where the existing application can also be > supported. > - default mempool is configured as alias. This is with empty ops. > - based on the mempool detections on the bus, the bus configure the > mempool ops internally with the actual ones.
What if both HW are on PCIe bus(That the case for us)? Any scheme to fix that? > > > > Santosh Shukla (2): > > eal: Introducing option to set mempool handle > > ether/ethdev: Allow pmd to advertise preferred pool capability > > > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c | 9 +++++++ > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map | 7 +++++ > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 3 +++ > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h | 2 ++ > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h | 2 ++ > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 9 +++++++ > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c | 36 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map | 7 +++++ > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 16 +++++++++++ > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 21 +++++++++++++++ > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ether_version.map | 7 +++++ > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 8 ++++-- > > 12 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >
