> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 7:57 AM > To: Ori Kam <[email protected]> > Cc: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; [email protected]; dpdk-dev > <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh <[email protected]>; Shahaf > Shuler <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > <[email protected]>; Opher Reviv <[email protected]>; Alex > Rosenbaum <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Prasun Kapoor > <[email protected]>; Nipun Gupta <[email protected]>; Richardson, > Bruce <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Thomas Monjalon > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem > > > > 4) app/test/test_regexdev.c like app/test/test_eventdev.c > > > > We started to create a super basic app, after the API will be finalized and > > we > will have HW > > we can push it. (if you need it faster than feel free) > > A simple Unit test case needs to be present for the APIs. On the > course of developing common code, > it can be developed to test the common code with dummy/skeleton driver. >
Agree this is what we are currently have. > > > > > 5) Need a maintainer for maintaining the regex subsystem > > > > > We wish to maintain it if you agree. > > Yes. Please. > Great. > > > > > > > > One more thing, regarding the ops structure, I think it is better to > > > > split it > to 2 > > > different > > > > structures one enque and one for dequeue, since there are no real shared > > > data and we will > > > > be able to save memory, what do you think? > > > > > > Ops are allocated from mempool so it will be overhead to manage both. > > > moreover, some > > > of the fields added in req can be used for resp as info. cryptodev > > > follows the similar concept, > > > I think, we can have symmetry with cryptodev wherever is possible to avoid > > > end-user to learn new API models. > > > > True that there will be overhead with 2 mempools (small one) > > but lets assume 255 results. This means that the buffer should be 255 * > sizeof(rte_regex_match) = 2K > > also this will enable us to replace groupX with group[] which will allow > > even > more groups. > > In addition don't think that crypto is a good example. > > The main difference is that in RegEx the output is different format then the > input. > > # IMO, Some of the fields may be useful for a response as well. I > think application may be interested in following > req filed in the response. > a) buf_addr I don't see how this can be used in the response. since if working in out of order result. you don’t know which result will be returned. I also think it is error prone to use the same op for the enqueue and dequeue. > b) scan_size Please see above. > c) user_id (This would be main one) Agree > > # Having two mempools adds overhead per lcore L1 cache usage and extra > complexity to the application. > > # IMO, From a performance perspective, one mempool is good due to less > stress on the cache and it is costly to > add new mempool for HW mempool implementations. > > # I think, group[] use case we can add it when it required by > introducing "matches_start_offset" field, which will > tell the req, where is the end of group[] and where "matches" start > with single mempool scheme also. > > # I think, one of the other use case for "matches_start_offset" that, > It may possible to put vendor-specific > opaque data. It will be filled by driver on response. The application > can reference the matches as > > struct rte_regex_match *matches = RTE_PTR_ADD(ops, ops- > >matches_start_offset); > O.K for now we will keep it as is, and we will see what will be in the future. > > > > > I assume you will send the v4 with these comments. I think, with v4 we > > > can start implementing common library code. > > > > Just need to agree on the split (one more iteration ) > > and I will start working on the common code. > > Ack. Great, I'm starting to work on V4 with all comments so the RFC will be acked and then will start coding the rest of the common code.
