-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:52:19 +0000 > From: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > CC: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads > API > > Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:48 PM, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:07:49 +0300 > > Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > > Introduce a new API to configure Tx offloads. > > > > > > In the new API, offloads are divided into per-port and per-queue > > > offloads. The PMD reports capability for each of them. > > > Offloads are enabled using the existing DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_* flags. > > > To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both device > > > configuration and queue configuration. To enable per-queue offload, > > > the offloads can be set only on queue configuration. > > > > > > In addition the Tx offloads will be disabled by default and be enabled > > > per application needs. This will much simplify PMD management of the > > > different offloads. > > > > > > The new API does not have an equivalent for the below, benchmark > > > specific, flags: > > > > > > - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT > > > - ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP > > > > > > Applications should set the ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_IGNORE flag on txq_flags > > > field in order to move to the new API. > > > > > > The old Tx offloads API is kept for the meanwhile, in order to enable > > > a smooth transition for PMDs and application to the new API. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > > > --- > > > > Agree on a conceptual and hardware level, that this is a property that could > > be per queue. But is there really an application that would want to have > > refcounting on one queue and not another? If application is cloning mbuf's > > it > > needs refcounting. One could even argue that for safety these should be > > library wide. That way if an application tried to manipulate ref count on > > an > > mbuf and refcountin was enabled it could be panic'd. > > Actually the refcount and multi mempool flags has no equivalent on this new > API. They are not counted as offloads rather some guarantees from application > side, which I agree that probably needs to by library wide. > In the current API you cannot set those per queue nor per port. I think there > is intention to move those flags to some other location following this series > [1]
I don't think that is in following this series. It should be in this series, if we are removing a feature then we should find a way to fit that in some location as there is a use case for it[1]. Without an alternative, this patch is NACK from me. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/074475.html > > [1] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/074475.html > > >
