Re: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2021-Oct-27

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:44 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > There was a comment to remove the TLV length. I will do that next
> > > > version with implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Identified the following set of work for this.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Common code at lib/dwa/
> > > > 2) Marvell DPU based driver at drivers/dwa/cnxk/
> > > > 3) Test application at app/test-dwa/
> > > > 4) It is possible to have an SW driver(To allow non-specialized HW
> > > > to use the
> > > > framework) for this by:
> > > > a) Emulate DWA HW as a separate DPDK process
> > > > b) Add drivers/dwa/sw/ and use memif driver so to create a
> > > > communication channel between emulated DWA HW process and DPDK
> > application.
> > > Why use memif driver? Why not ring-pmd?
> >
> > Planning to emulation DWA accelerator functional model as a separate DPDK
> > process in SW case.
> You mean the primary and secondary processes correct?

Primary and Primary. (DWA emulation as a separate primary process to
mimic the real-world scenario)

>
> > Therefore memif is the ideal choice as it supports zero-copy of the data as
> > well.
> > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/memif.html
> Zero-copy in memif is nothing but exchanging pointers to shared data.
> The rings work across the primary and secondary processes and are always zero-copy.
> We are doing some perf comparisons between memif and rings, will let you know once we have the data.

Ok.
I think between primary to primary memif will be required.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > c) Add drivers/dwa/sw/profiles//l3fwd - To implement l3fwd profile
> > > > using DPDK libraries for SW driver.
> > > >
> > > > I think, Item (4) aka SW drivers as useful(We don't need to
> > > > implement for all profiles, I think, just for  l3fwd it make sense
> > > > to add, to allow to use of the framework in just SW mode).
> > > > Is there any opinion on adding item (4) in DPDK? I saw mixed
> > > > opinions earlier on this. I would like to understand, Is there any
> > > > objection to doing
> > > > item(4) in DPDK as it needs a good amount of work and  I don't want
> > > > to do throw it away if the community doesn't like this.
> > > > Any opinion?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html
> > > >
> > > <snip>