Hi Narender,
On 3/4/2018 4:12 AM, Vangati, Narender wrote:
Akhil,
I'm probably missing a point somewhere but I don't follow the suggestions. To
me, ethdev, cryptodev, eventdev, etc. are device abstractions, whereas the
proposed ENQ mode isn't at the same level.
The DEQ mode is a device abstraction for cryptodev->eventdev (whether h/w or
s/w based), but the ENQ part of the adapter is purely a s/w programming model and
optional to the application. It is independent of any device and it’s an
application choice whether it wants to use this or not. Nothing prevents the
application from calling cryptodev_enqueue_burst towards any device directly
(whether it be soft crypto, NXP, Cavium, QAT, etc ) within an eventdev based
environment.
The ENQ mode allows an application programming model to be completely event
based. If the application chooses, it enables the ENQ part where it enqueues an
rte_event to the s/w adapter and the adapter then calls cryptodev_enqueue_burst
on its behalf, towards any device PMD which was created.
There are certain benefits to application architecture using this adapter where
you can leverage the ordered scheduling within eventdev etc., (and certain cons
where you need to run this service somewhere) but that’s up to the application
to decide.
In other words, I don’t consider ENQ mode as a device abstraction like
cryptodev or ethdev where it needs to plug in to something transparently but a
programming model that is provided as a choice, and that shouldn’t be tied up
into a device abstraction layer.
vnr
I am not against of eventdev enqueue API, or let the application decide
to use it or not.
I am trying to limit more options in already multi-option IPSEC
usecases. It is getting too confusing.
Also, my concern is that sw based crypto-event can also follow the same
path as the hw based in this case. This will help the application to
have a common code for both the cases.
-Akhil
---
-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 7:52 AM
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S
<abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil
<nikhil....@intel.com>; Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com;
narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com; nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com; nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2, 2/2] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header
Hi Jerin/Abhinandan,
On 2/20/2018 7:29 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:55:58 +0000
From: "Gujjar, Abhinandan S" <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Vangati, Narender"
<narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil....@intel.com>, "Eads,
Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com>, "hemant.agra...@nxp.com"
<hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "akhil.go...@nxp.com" <akhil.go...@nxp.com>,
"narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com" <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>,
"nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com" <nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>,
"nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com" <nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2, 2/2] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header
Hi Jerin,
Hi Abhinandan,
Thanks for the review. Please find few comments inline.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:04 AM
To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>;
Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>; Eads, Gage
<gage.e...@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; akhil.go...@nxp.com;
narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com; nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com;
nithin.dabilpu...@cavium.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2, 2/2] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:23:50 +0530
From: Abhinandan Gujjar <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
To: jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com
CC: dev@dpdk.org, narender.vang...@intel.com, Abhinandan Gujjar
<abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>, Nikhil Rao <nikhil....@intel.com>,
Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC v2, 2/2] eventdev: add crypto adapter API header
X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.9.1
+
+/**
+ * This adapter adds support to enqueue crypto completions to event device.
+ * The packet flow from cryptodev to the event device can be
+accomplished
+ * using both SW and HW based transfer mechanisms.
+ * The adapter uses a EAL service core function for SW based
+packet transfer
+ * and uses the eventdev PMD functions to configure HW based
+packet transfer
+ * between the cryptodev and the event device.
+ *
+ * In the case of SW based transfers, application can choose to
+submit a
I think, we can remove "In the case of SW based transfers" as it
should be applicable for HW case too
Ok. In that case, adapter will detect the presence of HW connection
between cryptodev & eventdev and will not dequeue crypto completions.
I would say presence of "specific capability" instead of HW.
+ * crypto operation directly to cryptodev or send it to the
+ cryptodev
+ * adapter via eventdev, the cryptodev adapter then submits the
+ crypto
+ * operation to the crypto device. The first mode is known as the
The first mode (DEQ) is very clear. In the second mode(ENQ_DEQ),
- How does "worker" submits the crypto work through crypto-adapter?
If I understand it correctly, "workers" always deals with only
cryptodev's
rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst() API and "service" function in crypto
adapter would be responsible for dequeue() from cryptodev and enqueue to
eventdev?
I understand the need for OP_NEW vs OP_FWD mode difference in both modes.
Other than that, What makes ENQ_DEQ different? Could you share the
flow for ENQ_DEQ mode with APIs.
/*
Application changes for ENQ_DEQ mode:
-------------------------------------------------
/* In ENQ_DEQ mode, to enqueue to adapter app
* has to fill out following details.
*/
struct rte_event_crypto_request *req;
struct rte_crypto_op *op = rte_crypto_op_alloc();
/* fill request info */
req = (void *)((char *)op + op.private_data_offset);
req->cdev_id = 1;
req->queue_pair_id = 1;
/* fill response info */
...
/* send event to crypto adapter */
ev->event_ptr = op;
ev->queue_id = dst_event_qid;
ev->priority = dst_priority;
ev->sched_type = dst_sched_type;
ev->event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CRYPTODEV;
ev->sub_event_type = sub_event_type;
ev->flow_id = dst_flow_id;
ret = rte_event_enqueue_burst(event_dev_id, event_port_id, ev, 1);
Adapter in ENQ_DEQ mode, submitting crypto ops to cryptodev:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
n = rte_event_dequeue_burst(event_dev_id, event_port_id, ev,
BATCH_SIZE, time_out);
struct rte_crypto_op *op = ev->event_ptr;
struct rte_event_crypto_request *req = (void *)op +
op.private_data_offset;
cdev_id = req->cdev_id;
qp_id = req->queue_pair_id
ret = rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst(cdev_id, qp_id, op, 1);
This mode wont work for the HW implementations that I know. As in HW
implementations, The Adapter is embedded in HW.
The DEQ mode works. But, This would call for to have two separate
application logic for DEQ and ENQ_DEQ mode.
I think, it is unavoidable as SW scheme has better performance with ENQ_DEQ
MODE.
If you think, there is no option other than introducing a capability
in adapter then please create capability in Rx adapter to inform the
adapter capability to the application.
Do we think, it possible to have scheme with ENQ_DEQ mode, Where
application still enqueue to cryptodev like DEQ mode but using
cryptodev. ie. Adapter patches the cryptodev dev->enqueue_burst() to
"eventdev enqueue burst" followed by "exiting dev->enqueue_burst".
Something like exiting ethdev rx_burst callback scheme.
This will enable application to have unified flow IMO.
Any thoughts from NXP folks?
I see that there is performance gain in sw side while using ENQ_DEQ mode. But
since we already have many modes in the application already, can we make this
one with some callback to cryptodev.
So the application can call the rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst() as it is doing,
and if the ENQ_DEQ mode is supported by the underneath implementation then, it
can register a callback to the implementation that is required in the driver
layer itself.
In this way, the application will become less complex as compared to the
2 parallel implementations for SW and HW. It will also give more flexibility to
the driver implementation as well.
-Akhil
*/
+ * dequeue only (DEQ) mode and the second as the enqueue -
+ dequeue
extra space between "mode" and "and"
Ok
+ * (ENQ_DEQ) mode. The choice of mode can be specified when
+ creating
+ * the adapter.
+ * In the latter choice, the cryptodev adapter is able to use
+ * RTE_OP_FORWARD as the event dev enqueue type, this has a
+ performance
+ * advantage in "closed system" eventdevs like the eventdev SW PMD
+ and
