Hi Akhil, Thanks for pointing out the requirement from your side. I will update you on this.
Regard Abhinandan > -----Original Message----- > From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 5:05 PM > To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; > jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan > <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender > <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>; Eads, Gage > <gage.e...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev, v1, 2/5] eventdev: add crypto adapter implementation > > Hi Abhinandan/ Jerin, > On 4/18/2018 11:51 AM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote: > > Hi Akhil, > > > > Please find the comments inline. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:48 PM > >> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; > >> jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Doherty, > >> Declan <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender > >> <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>; > >> Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev, v1, 2/5] eventdev: add crypto adapter > >> implementation > >> > >> Hi Abhinandan, > >> > >> I have not reviewed the patch completely. But I have below query for > >> further review. > >> On 4/4/2018 12:26 PM, Abhinandan Gujjar wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Gujjar <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Rao <nikhil....@intel.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com> > >>> --- > >> > >> [..snip..] > >>> + > >>> +int __rte_experimental > >>> +rte_event_crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add(uint8_t id, > >>> + uint8_t cdev_id, > >>> + int32_t queue_pair_id) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct rte_event_crypto_adapter *adapter; > >>> + struct rte_eventdev *dev; > >>> + struct crypto_device_info *dev_info; > >>> + uint32_t cap; > >>> + int ret; > >>> + > >>> + RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_ID_VALID_OR_ERR_RET(id, -EINVAL); > >>> + > >>> + if (!rte_cryptodev_pmd_is_valid_dev(cdev_id)) { > >>> + RTE_EDEV_LOG_ERR("Invalid dev_id=%" PRIu8, cdev_id); > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + adapter = eca_id_to_adapter(id); > >>> + if (adapter == NULL) > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + > >>> + dev = &rte_eventdevs[adapter->eventdev_id]; > >>> + ret = rte_event_crypto_adapter_caps_get(adapter->eventdev_id, > >>> + cdev_id, > >>> + &cap); > >>> + if (ret) { > >>> + RTE_EDEV_LOG_ERR("Failed to get adapter caps dev %" PRIu8 > >>> + "cdev %" PRIu8, id, cdev_id); > >>> + return ret; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + dev_info = &adapter->cdevs[cdev_id]; > >>> + > >>> + if (queue_pair_id != -1 && > >>> + (uint16_t)queue_pair_id >= dev_info->dev->data->nb_queue_pairs) { > >>> + RTE_EDEV_LOG_ERR("Invalid queue_pair_id %" PRIu16, > >>> + (uint16_t)queue_pair_id); > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + if (cap & RTE_EVENT_CRYPTO_ADAPTER_CAP_INTERNAL_PORT) { > >>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET( > >>> + *dev->dev_ops->crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add, > >>> + -ENOTSUP); > >>> + if (dev_info->qpairs == NULL) { > >>> + dev_info->qpairs = > >>> + rte_zmalloc_socket(adapter->mem_name, > >>> + dev_info->dev->data->nb_queue_pairs > >> * > >>> + sizeof(struct crypto_queue_pair_info), > >>> + 0, adapter->socket_id); > >>> + if (dev_info->qpairs == NULL) > >>> + return -ENOMEM; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + ret = (*dev->dev_ops->crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add)(dev, > >>> + dev_info->dev, > >>> + queue_pair_id); > >> > >> crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add is supposed to attach a queue > >> (queue_pair_id) of cryptodev(dev_info->dev) to event device (dev). > >> But how will the underlying implementation attach it to event device > >> without knowing the eventdev queue_id. This information was coming in > >> the RFC patches with the parameter (rte_event_crypto_queue_pair_conf). > >> Why is this removed and if removed how will the driver attach the queue. > >> I can see that rte_event is passed in the session private data but > >> how can we attach the crypto queue with event dev queue? > > > > Yes, this was present in the first version of the RFC which is similar to > > eth rx > adapter. > > After couple of discussions, thread > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/31752/), > > it was changed. In eth rx adapter, eth queues are mapped to eventdev, > > whereas in crypto adapter the sessions are mapped to eventdev. Since > > event info is present along with the session, the get API has to be > > called in respective API to get the event information and then map to > eventdev. > > > > I think the intent of that discussion was misunderstood from our end. > But this is not going to work for hardware devices. > > Because in case of hardware implementation, the scheduling is done in > hardware and hardware cannot call the get API to get the event information > then map to event device. Actually the scheduling has happened before the > crypto_op is dequeued from the event port. So there is no point of set/get > private data in our case. > > We need to map the crypto queues to the event queue_ids at the time of > queue_pair add API. In hardware scheduler, we map n(may be 1-8) crypto > queues to m event queues(<= n). We can assign multiple sessions to any crypto > queue pair, and after the crypto op is received by event queue, they are > appropriately scheduled by hardware to event ports. > > Session based mapping to event queue cannot be supported. Our design is same > as that of eth rx adapter. > > Akhil
