On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:06 PM Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> wrote: > > > > On 30/06/2020 12:30, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:52 PM Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 27/06/2020 08:44, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>>> + > >>>> +/** Event port configuration structure */ > >>>> +struct rte_event_port_conf_v20 { > >>>> + int32_t new_event_threshold; > >>>> + /**< A backpressure threshold for new event enqueues on this > >>>> port. > >>>> + * Use for *closed system* event dev where event capacity is > >>>> limited, > >>>> + * and cannot exceed the capacity of the event dev. > >>>> + * Configuring ports with different thresholds can make higher > >>>> priority > >>>> + * traffic less likely to be backpressured. > >>>> + * For example, a port used to inject NIC Rx packets into the > >>>> event dev > >>>> + * can have a lower threshold so as not to overwhelm the device, > >>>> + * while ports used for worker pools can have a higher threshold. > >>>> + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_events_limit* > >>>> + * which was previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure(). > >>>> + * This should be set to '-1' for *open system*. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + uint16_t dequeue_depth; > >>>> + /**< Configure number of bulk dequeues for this event port. > >>>> + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_event_port_dequeue_depth* > >>>> + * which previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure(). > >>>> + * Ignored when device is not RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_BURST_MODE > >>>> capable. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + uint16_t enqueue_depth; > >>>> + /**< Configure number of bulk enqueues for this event port. > >>>> + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_event_port_enqueue_depth* > >>>> + * which previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure(). > >>>> + * Ignored when device is not RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_BURST_MODE > >>>> capable. > >>>> + */ > >>>> uint8_t disable_implicit_release; > >>>> /**< Configure the port not to release outstanding events in > >>>> * rte_event_dev_dequeue_burst(). If true, all events received > >>>> through > >>>> @@ -733,6 +911,14 @@ struct rte_event_port_conf { > >>>> rte_event_port_default_conf_get(uint8_t dev_id, uint8_t port_id, > >>>> struct rte_event_port_conf *port_conf); > >>>> > >>>> +int > >>>> +rte_event_port_default_conf_get_v20(uint8_t dev_id, uint8_t port_id, > >>>> + struct rte_event_port_conf_v20 > >>>> *port_conf); > >>>> + > >>>> +int > >>>> +rte_event_port_default_conf_get_v21(uint8_t dev_id, uint8_t port_id, > >>>> + struct rte_event_port_conf > >>>> *port_conf); > >>> > >>> Hi Timothy, > >>> > >>> + ABI Maintainers (Ray, Neil) > >>> > >>> # As per my understanding, the structures can not be versioned, only > >>> function can be versioned. > >>> i.e we can not make any change to " struct rte_event_port_conf" > >> > >> So the answer is (as always): depends > >> > >> If the structure is being use in inline functions is when you run into > >> trouble > >> - as knowledge of the structure is embedded in the linked application. > >> > >> However if the structure is _strictly_ being used as a non-inlined > >> function parameter, > >> It can be safe to version in this way. > > > > But based on the optimization applied when building the consumer code > > matters. Right? > > i.e compiler can "inline" it, based on the optimization even the > > source code explicitly mentions it. > > Well a compiler will typically only inline within the confines of a given > object file, or > binary, if LTO is enabled.
> > If a function symbol is exported from library however, it won't be inlined in > a linked application. Yes, With respect to that function. But the application can use struct rte_event_port_conf in their code and it can be part of other structures. Right? > The compiler doesn't have enough information to inline it. > All the compiler will know about it is it's offset in memory, and it's > signature. > > > > > > >> > >> So just to be clear, it is still the function that is actually being > >> versioned here. > >> > >>> > >>> # We have a similar case with ethdev and it deferred to next release > >>> v20.11 > >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/69113/ > >> > >> Yes - I spent a why looking at this one, but I am struggling to recall, > >> why when I looked it we didn't suggest function versioning as a potential > >> solution in this case. > >> > >> Looking back at it now, looks like it would have been ok. > > > > Ok. > > > >> > >>> > >>> Regarding the API changes: > >>> # The slow path changes general looks good to me. I will review the > >>> next level in the coming days > >>> # The following fast path changes bothers to me. Could you share more > >>> details on below change? > >>> > >>> diff --git a/app/test-eventdev/test_order_atq.c > >>> b/app/test-eventdev/test_order_atq.c > >>> index 3366cfc..8246b96 100644 > >>> --- a/app/test-eventdev/test_order_atq.c > >>> +++ b/app/test-eventdev/test_order_atq.c > >>> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ > >>> continue; > >>> } > >>> > >>> + ev.flow_id = ev.mbuf->udata64; > >>> + > >>> # Since RC1 is near, I am not sure how to accommodate the API changes > >>> now and sort out ABI stuffs. > >>> # Other concern is eventdev spec get bloated with versioning files > >>> just for ONE release as 20.11 will be OK to change the ABI. > >>> # While we discuss the API change, Please send deprecation notice for > >>> ABI change for 20.11, > >>> so that there is no ambiguity of this patch for the 20.11 release. > >>>