Hi Akhil, Please see inline.
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 5:04 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju > Athreya <[email protected]>; Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]>; > Archana Muniganti <[email protected]>; Tejasree Kondoj > <[email protected]>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <[email protected]>; > Lukas Bartosik <[email protected]>; Konstantin Ananyev > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [EXT] RE: [PATCH 04/14] examples/ipsec-secgw: add Rx adapter > support > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Anoob, > > I have just started looking into this patchset. Will be doing a detailed > review > soon. > But an initial comment. > Why do you need 1-1 mapping between event queue and ethdev queue. > > All eth and crypto queues will be attached to eventdev. And there may be > single > event queue Or multiple but not necessarily equal to eth queues. [Anoob] You are right. We could have one single event queue which could handle all traffic. But the idea of more event queues is to better isolate independent traffic flows. If all traffic is forwarded to single event queue, it could lead to artificial dependency between otherwise independent flows and underutilization of resources. But having a single event queue is also a valid case, and we shouldn't have that case failing. So I'll have an else case for the below check and would adjust the code to work with single event queue. > > + > > + /* Make sure there is enough event queues for 1:1 mapping */ > > + if (nb_eth_dev > eventdev_config->nb_eventqueue) { > > + EH_LOG_ERR("Not enough event queues for 1:1 mapping " > > + "[eth devs: %d, event queues: %d]\n", > > + nb_eth_dev, eventdev_config->nb_eventqueue); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > +
