From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:11:40 +0530 Message-ID: <20180412054138.GA11392@jerin> References: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ajit Khaparde , Shijith Thotton , Santosh Shukla , Rahul Lakkireddy , John Daley , Wenzhuo Lu , Konstantin Ananyev , Beilei Xing , Qi Zhang , Jingjing Wu , Adrien Mazarguil , Nelio Laranjeiro , Yongseok Koh , Shahaf Shuler , Tomasz Duszynski , Jianbo Liu , Alejandro Lucero , Hemant Agrawal , Shreyansh Jain , Harish Patil , Rasesh Mody , To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0043.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D58E1B701 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:42:06 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2759953.P7QpFFSjiU@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" -----Original Message----- > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:47:55 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob > , Shijith Thotton > , Santosh Shukla > , Rahul Lakkireddy > , John Daley , Wenzhuo > Lu , Konstantin Ananyev > , Beilei Xing , Qi > Zhang , Jingjing Wu , Adrien > Mazarguil , Nelio Laranjeiro > , Yongseok Koh , Shahaf > Shuler , Tomasz Duszynski , Jianbo > Liu , Alejandro Lucero > , Hemant Agrawal , > Shreyansh Jain , Harish Patil > , Rasesh Mody , Andrew > Rybchenko , Shrikrishna Khare > , Maxime Coquelin , Allain > Legacy , Bruce Richardson > , Gaetan Rivet , > Olivier Matz > Subject: Survey for final decision about per-port offload API > > There are some discussions about a specific part of the offload API: > "To enable per-port offload, the offload should be set on both > device configuration and queue setup." > > It means the application must repeat the port offload flags > in rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads and rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads, > when calling respectively rte_eth_dev_configure() and > rte_eth_[rt]x_queue_setup for each queue. > > The PMD must check if there is mismatch, i.e. a port offload not > repeated in queue setup. > There is a proposal to do this check at ethdev level: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/094023.html > > It was also proposed to relax the API and allow "forgetting" port > offloads in queue offloads: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-March/092978.html > > It would mean the offloads applied to a queue result of OR operation: > rte_eth_conf.[rt]xmode.offloads | rte_eth_[rt]xconf.offloads > > 1/ Do you agree with above API change? Yes. > > > If we agree with this change, we need to update the documentation > and remove the checks in PMDs. > Note: no matter what is decided here, 18.05-rc1 should have all PMDs > switched to the API which was defined in 17.11. > Given that API is new and not yet adopted by the applications, > the sonner it is fixed, the better. > > 2/ Should we do this change in 18.05-rc2? Yes. > > > At the same time, we want to make clear that an offload enabled at > port level, cannot be disabled at queue level. > > 3/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes. > > > There is the same kind of confusion in the offload capabilities: > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_offload_capa > rte_eth_dev_info.[rt]x_queue_offload_capa > The queue capabilities must be a subset of port capabilities, > i.e. every queue capabilities must be reported as port capabilities. > But the port capabilities should be reported at queue level > only if it can be applied to a specific queue. > > 4/ Do you agree with above statement (to be added in the doc)? Yes > > > Please give your opinion on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. > Answering by yes/no may be sufficient in most cases :) > Thank you > >