> -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 2:53 PM > To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>; Richardson, > Bruce <[email protected]>; Neil Horman > <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; > Kovacevic, Marko <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [patch v3] doc: announce API change in ethdev > offload flags > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi guys, > > > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh <[email protected]> > > > > Add new offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS`` > > and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK``. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > > --- > > v3 Changes: > > - DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS -> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH (anndrew). > > > > v2 Changes: > > - Reword for clarity. > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > index 37b8592b6..056c5709f 100644 > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > @@ -78,3 +78,16 @@ Deprecation Notices > > to set new power environment if power environment was already > initialized. > > In this case the function will return -1 unless the environment is unset > first > > (using ``rte_power_unset_env``). Other function usage scenarios will not > change. > > + > > +* ethdev: New offload flags ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE``, > > +``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH`` > > + and ``DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_FLOW_MARK`` will be added in 19.11. > > One question about DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE: > Does it mean that new ol_flags value (PKT_RX_PTYPE) will be introduced to > indicate that mbuf.packet_type value is set? > Or PMD will have to set mbuf.packet_type to zero, when > DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE was not enabled by user?
I was thinking when DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE is set - mbuf.packet_type will be valid and mbuf.packet_type will have parsed packet type. If not set - mbuf.packet_type can be anything application should not use mbuf.packet_type field. This will avoid writes 0 to mbuf.packet_type and packet_type parsing if offload is not set. > If so, what is the advantage? > Again in that case, would it be more plausible to introduce something like: > rte_eth_dev_set_supported_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t > ptype_mask); instead of DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_PTYPE? Any scheme is fine where we can skip the write 0 to mbuf.packet_type and packet_type parsing If application is NOT interested in packet_type. > Konstantin > > > + This will allow application to enable or disable PMDs from updating > > + ``rte_mbuf`` fields ``rte_mbuf::packet_type``, > > + ``rte_mbuf::hash::rss`` and ``rte_mbuf::hash::fdir`` respectively. > > + This scheme will allow PMDs to avoid writes to ``rte_mbuf`` fields > > + on Rx and thereby improve Rx performance if application wishes do so. > > + In 19.11 PMDs will still update the fields even when the offloads > > + are not enabled. > > + The exact semantics of the flags will be worked out later either by > > + making them negative offloads to avoid application change or > > + positive offload to align with existing offload flag semantics. > > -- > > 2.17.1
