Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: rte_eth_rx_burst() requirements fornb_pkts

From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "Jeff Guo" <jia.guo@intel.com>,
	"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Rybchenko" <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	<qiming.yang@intel.com>, <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
	<wei.zhao1@intel.com>, <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
	<jingjing.wu@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>, <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
	<barbette@kth.se>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: rte_eth_rx_burst() requirements fornb_pkts
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:15:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6126B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20200828100719.GA575@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com

> From: Morten Brørup
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 12:51 PM
> 
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 12:07 PM
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:03:59AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce
> > Richardson
> > > >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Right. For now then, it seems like just documenting a minimum burst
> > > > size is
> > > > reasonable.
> > >
> > > I agree. It is so far from the spirit of DPDK to call
> > rte_eth_rx_burst() with a small nb_pkts that the driver developers
> > didn't even consider it. The API documentation needs fixing, not the
> > drivers.
> > >
> > > It doesn't take care of your example 4 packet latency sensitive
> > application, though. Which BTW also doesn’t work today on drivers with
> > vector support. So it might not be a real world scenario anyway. :-)
> > >
> > AFAIK, 8 is the smallest burst guaranteed to work everywhere, but I
> > think
> > just about everything bar the AVX2 i40e code path also supports 4 as a
> > burst size. Therefore adjusting to 4 as min-burst might well be
> > reasonable.
> >
> > /Bruce
> 
> There must be a reason the i40e AVX2 driver chose to step up to 8 from the
> previous convention of 4.
> 
> Considering Intel's stance on the controversial vector instructions, a
> larger numbers seems more future proof. HPC benefits from the vector
> instructions, and DPDK seems to benefit from them too. Let's not prevent
> that.
> 
> Since I don't have insight into Intel's (or any other CPU vendors') plans
> for future vector instructions, I will assume that 8 suffices for the
> foreseeable future, and thus I am leaning towards 8 rather than 4.
> 

nb_pkts must be >= 8 and divisible by 8.

Alternatively to being divisible by 8, would there be any benefit in requiring that it is a power-of-two?

-Morten