Hi Sujith, It makes sens, using VFIO makes a far cleaner implementation. You worked on the performance, could you share some measurements ? Did you introduce vectorization functions as Intel did a while ago? There are allways tradeoffs between pps and latency, do you include documentation to configure the card for one or the other? HK From: ssuj...@cisco.com To: hobywank at hotmail.com; dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for guidelines for submission Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:46:08 +0000
Hi Hobywan, Thanks for the email ! We?ve been working on performance benchmarking. Also, we felt that it would be better to push the driver after Anatoly?s patch (vfio-pci) got in so that we could make the necessary modification before submission. Now that 1.7.0 is out, we are hopeful of submitting the patch soon. Thanks, -Sujith From: Hobywan Kenoby <hobyw...@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, 10 July 2014 1:37 am To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com>, "dev at dpdk.org" <dev at dpdk.org> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for guidelines for submission Hi Sujith, It was exciting to see open source code coming from Cisco ensuring a DPDK application can run on any platform and with any card.... I haven't seen your patch yet. What happened? HK > Date : Wed, 28 May 2014 08:06 > From : dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] > To : dev at dpdk.org > Subject : [dpdk-dev] PMD for Cisco VIC Ethernet NIC - Request for guidelines > for submission > > > Hi all, > > We have been working on development of poll-mode driver for Cisco VIC > Ethernet NIC and integration of it with DPDK. We would like to submit this > poll-mode driver (ENIC PMD) to the DPDK community so that it could be part > of the DPDK tree. > > Could someone please provide the guidelines and steps to do this? As of > now, ENIC PMD is being tested with DPDK 1.6.0r2. Is it alright to submit a > patch for DPDK 1.6.0r2? > > One aspect of ENIC PMD is that it works with VFIO-PCI and not UIO. Hope > this is acceptable. The following thread in dpdk-dev influenced this > decision. > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2013-July/000373.html > > ENIC PMD uses one interrupt per interface and it is used by the NIC for > signalling the driver in case of any error. Since this does not come in > the fast path, it should be acceptable, isn?t it? > > Please give your suggestions and comments. > > Thanks, > -Sujith