t;
, "Wu, Jingjing"
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
API
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:arybche...@solarflare.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Shahaf Shuler ; Jerin Jacob
Cc: Ananyev,
To: Shahaf Shuler ; Jerin Jacob
> >
> > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Stephen Hemminger
> > ; Thomas Monjalon
> > ; dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Helin ;
> > Wu, Jingjing
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
> > API
Helin ;
> Wu, Jingjing
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads API
>
> On 09/12/2017 11:03 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > OK, well understood the requirement for such flags. Thanks for your replies.
> >
> > I think that for s
On 09/12/2017 11:03 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
OK, well understood the requirement for such flags. Thanks for your replies.
I think that for simplicity I will add two more flags on the Tx offloads
capabilities:
DEV_TX_OFFLOADS _MULTI_MEMPOOL <** Device supports transmission of mbufs from
multip
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:18 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> > Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:52 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > I understand the use case, and the fact those flags improve the
> > > performance on low-end ARM CPUs.
> > > > IMO those flags cannot be on queue/port level. They must be global.
> > >
>
-Original Message-
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:35:16 +
> From: Shahaf Shuler
> To: Jerin Jacob
> CC: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Stephen Hemminger
> , Thomas Monjalon ,
> "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Helin" ,
> "Wu, Jingjing"
September 12, 2017 9:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko:
I think port level is the right place for these flags. These flags define which
transmit and transmit cleanup callbacks could be used. These functions are
specified on port level now. However, I see no good reasons to change it.
The Tx queue flags are
On 09/12/2017 09:35 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:52 AM, Jerin Jacob:
- The application can express it wants such optimization.
- It is global
Currently it does not seems there is high demand for such flags from other
PMDs. If such demand will raise, we can discuss aga
On 09/12/2017 08:51 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:01 AM, Jerin Jacob:
Yes, only when ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP and
ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT selected at tx queue configuration.
So literally, yes it is not a TX HW offload, though I understand your
intention to have such pos
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:52 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> > I understand the use case, and the fact those flags improve the
> performance on low-end ARM CPUs.
> > IMO those flags cannot be on queue/port level. They must be global.
>
> Where should we have it as global(in terms of API)?
> And why it can
-Original Message-
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:25:42 +
> From: Shahaf Shuler
> To: Jerin Jacob , "Ananyev, Konstantin"
>
> CC: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon
> , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Helin"
> , "Wu, Jingjing"
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:01 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> Yes, only when ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOMULTMEMP and
> ETH_TXQ_FLAGS_NOREFCOUNT selected at tx queue configuration.
>
> >
> > So literally, yes it is not a TX HW offload, though I understand your
> > intention to have such possibility - it might help to s
-Original Message-
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:02:07 +
> From: "Ananyev, Konstantin"
> To: Jerin Jacob , Shahaf Shuler
>
> CC: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon
> , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Helin"
> , "Wu, Jingjing"
On 09/11/2017 03:27 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
September 11, 2017 11:03 AM, Andrew Rybchenko:
+/**
+ * A conversion function from txq_flags API.
+ */
+static void
+rte_eth_convert_txq_flags(const uint32_t txq_flags, uint64_t *tx_offloads)
Maybe tx_offlaods should be simp
September 11, 2017 11:03 AM, Andrew Rybchenko:
+/**
+ * A conversion function from txq_flags API.
+ */
+static void
+rte_eth_convert_txq_flags(const uint32_t txq_flags, uint64_t *tx_offloads)
Maybe tx_offlaods should be simply return value of the function instead of void.
Similar comm
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand.
> > > > From the exact link above, you explicitly say that *you* will move this
> > > > flags
> > > once the series is integrated. Quoting:
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > > > Please Jerin, could you work on moving these settings in a new API?
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Onc
-Original Message-
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:46:50 +
> From: Shahaf Shuler
> To: Jerin Jacob
> CC: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon
> , "dev@dpdk.org"
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
> API
>
>
Monday, September 11, 2017 11:06 AM, Jerin Jacob:
> >
> > I don't understand.
> > From the exact link above, you explicitly say that *you* will move this
> > flags
> once the series is integrated. Quoting:
> >
> > "
> > > Please Jerin, could you work on moving these settings in a new API?
> >
> >
-Original Message-
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:56:05 +
> From: Shahaf Shuler
> To: Jerin Jacob
> CC: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon
> , "dev@dpdk.org"
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
> API
>
&g
On 09/10/2017 03:07 PM, Shahaf Shuler 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 of
Monday, September 11, 2017 9:21 AM, Jerin Jacob:
>
> 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
-Original Message-
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:52:19 +
> From: Shahaf Shuler
> To: Stephen Hemminger
> CC: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org"
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: introduce Tx queue offloads
> API
>
> Sunday, September 1
Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:48 PM, Stephen Hemminger:
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:07:49 +0300
> Shahaf Shuler 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 t
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:07:49 +0300
Shahaf Shuler 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.
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
