TB Attendees ----------------- Bruce Hemant Honnappa Jerin Kevin Konstantin Maxime Morten Thomas
NOTE: The technical board meetings are on every second Wednesday at 3 pm UTC. Meetings are public, and DPDK community members are welcome to attend. Link to join: https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/96459488340?password=d808f1f6-0a28-4165-929e-5a5bcae7efeb NOTE: Next meeting will be on Wednesday 2024-Jan-24 @3pm UTC, and will be chaired by Kevin 1. Governing board direction to Techboard - Governing board has asked Techboard to explore the applicability and usability of DPDK in certain technology areas and address any gaps. - This seems like an expansion of the role of Techboard. Originally Techboard was created as a final arbiter of the patches coming from DPDK community. - This will add burden on Techboard members' bandwidth. - This is a community driven project and not a Techboard driven project. - If the investigations find gaps in the technology areas, the Techboard still expects contributions from member companies to address these gaps. - If the technology areas are of interest to member companies, Techboard expects them to contribute patches to the community. - All that the Techboard could do is, drive attention to the gaps. - Set realistic expectations on the outcome given constraints on bandwidth, knowledge and lack of contributions - Thomas to understand the role of DPDK in AI 2. TCP and TLS support in DPDK - Does TLS slow path need support in DPDK? - There are performance and ease of use benefits for creating a DPDK native TCP stack. - We need to think of adding UDP support which is being used more widely. In general we need to identify gaps to support higher level protocols. 3. How well does DPDK run on Hyperscaler environments? - Can UNH take the task of running DPDK on Hyperscaler environments? UNH seems to have lot of things already. - In the Hyperscaler environment, DPDK could be used for various purposes. DPDK usage in Hyperscaler infrastructure (for ex: DPU), the existing DTS testing could be sufficient. - However, the DPDK usage in tenant deployment scenarios needs to be tested. - Could cloud providers send their performance and functional test reports to DPDK community (similar to how we publish these reports for physical NICs)? - We can start with Gov board to place these requests to members on Gov board. - We could also ask the maintainers of the virtual NICs from the cloud providers. - Thomas to follow up on the above two asks. 4. The security topic would be discussed in a joint TB and GB meeting scheduled for next Thursday (2024-Jan-18). 5. Pending EAL arg parse patches - There are 3 separate patches on argument handling for DPDK. a. Python argparse equivalent - http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=30506 b. library to build up a argv, argc list to pass it to EAL init. This is not a complex problem to solve. But it is helpful when one has a more dynamic list of arguments - http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=30120 c. Simplest and smallest. Provides core mask and core list parsing - https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=30582 - These are all slightly different. - Ask for Techboard: Go through the patches, participate in discussions on the mailing list. - Need to decide the functionality required and decide on which way to move forward. - Does it make sense to consider if the library can also be used for managing the arguments for Telemetry? - Investigate the ability to initialize/create things through APIs, not only though EAL text arguments via argc/argv.
