> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:20 AM > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com> > Cc: Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > nipun.gu...@nxp.com; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>; > Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eventdev: add event adapter for ethernet Rx queues > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 02:23:15 +0000 > > From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com> > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > > CC: "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil....@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" > > <dev@dpdk.org>, "tho...@monjalon.net" <tho...@monjalon.net>, > "Richardson, Bruce" > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, "Van Haaren, Harry" > > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>, "hemant.agra...@nxp.com" > > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "nipun.gu...@nxp.com" > > <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>, "Vangati, Narender" > <narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Gujjar, Abhinandan S" > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] eventdev: add event adapter for ethernet Rx > > queues > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:23 AM > > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > > tho...@monjalon.net; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; > > > Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; > > > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; nipun.gu...@nxp.com; Vangati, Narender > > > <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S > > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eventdev: add event adapter for ethernet Rx > > > queues > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:19:32 +0000 > > > > From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com> > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, "Rao, Nikhil" > > > > <nikhil....@intel.com> > > > > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "tho...@monjalon.net" > > > > <tho...@monjalon.net>, "Richardson, Bruce" > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, "Van Haaren, Harry" > > > <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>, "hemant.agra...@nxp.com" > > > > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "nipun.gu...@nxp.com" > > > > <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>, "Vangati, Narender" > > > <narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Gujjar, Abhinandan S" > > > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] eventdev: add event adapter for ethernet > > > > Rx queues > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) specifying rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_conf.rx_event_port_id > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create() would waste one HW > > > > > > > eventdev port if its happen to be used > > > > > > > RX_ADAPTER_CAP_INBUILT_PORT on > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add(). > > > > > > > unlike SW eventdev port, HW eventdev ports are costly so I > > > > > > > think, We need to have another eventdev PMD ops to create > > > service/producer ports. > > > > > > > Or any other scheme that creates > > > > > > > rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_conf.rx_event_port_id > > > > > > > on demand by common code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One solution is: > > > > > > > > > > > > struct rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_conf { > > > > > > uint8_t dev_id; > > > > > > > > > > > > int (*conf_cb)(uint8_t id, uint8_t port_id, uint32_t > > > > > > flags, struct rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_conf *conf); > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned int max_nb_rx; > > > > > > > > > > > > int event_port_id; > > > > > > > > > > > > char service_name[]; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > Where dev_id and conf_cb have to be specified in the create > > > > > > call, but event_port_id and service_name will be filled in > > > > > > when > > > > > > conf_cb() is invoked > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking like event_port_id will be rte_event_port_count() + 1. > > > > > ie When adapter needs the additional port, It can > > > > > - stop the eventdev > > > > > - reconfigure with rte_event_queue_count() , > > > > > rte_event_port_count() > > > > > + 1 > > > > > - start the eventdev. > > > > > > > > > > The only problem with callback is that all the application needs > > > > > to implement > > > it. > > > > > If you think, application need more control then we can expose > > > > > callback and if it is NULL then default handler can be called in > > > > > common > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we can rely on there being another port available -- > > > > a user may > > > have configured the sw eventdev with all 64 ports, for instance. > > > > > > On that case, irrespective any scheme(callback vs non callback) the > > > adapter creation would fail. Right? > > > > > > > What if the user is required to calculate cfg.nb_event_ports as a > > > > function of > > > the RX_ADAPTER_CAP_INBUILT_PORT capability (i.e. add a port if the > > > capability is not set), such that a reconfigure is not required? > > > > > > We have only one NON INBUILT eventdev port per adapter. Right? i.e > > > in the v1 spec it was rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_conf.event_port_id, > > > How about it can be rte_event_port_count() + 1 ? Since we are NOT > > > linking this port, the context call be kept in adapter itself. Right? > > > > It could be. Thinking on it some more, I'm a little concerned about doing > configuration without the application's knowledge. Possible issues that could > arise: > > - The user later reconfigures the event device with fewer ports and > > the adapter's port becomes invalid, or reconfigures it with more ports > > and begins using the port the adapter is using > > - rte_event_port_count() + 1 extends beyond the PMD's capabilities > > (the sw PMD is hard-coded to support a max of 64 ports, for example) > > > > Having the user be responsible for the port configuration could avoid these > problems. Since the user needs to check the <eventdev, ethdev> pair's > capabilities for the CAP_ADD_QUEUE anyway, they could also check for > INBUILT_PORT and decide whether or not to request an additional port at > eventdev configure time -- thereby ensuring they don't waste a port when using > hardware with inbuilt ports. And this keeps the configuration code in one > place > (the app), rather than spread across the app, adapter, and potentially the > conf_cb. > > OK.Sounds reasonable.May be we can push the responsibility to application.We > could have a helper function using the proposed adapter API. That helper > function would create the adapter based on the capability for the _default_ > case. > Applications free to use the raw adapter API to get more control if required. > Otherwise we will duplicate the code in all the applications. >
Makes sense. Are you thinking the helper function would do stop + reconfig with additional port + start + setup port, or just setup the port with an ID the app supplies (only when a port is required, of course)? The second one could be done with little additional code -- the app just needs to check if an additional port is needed when configuring the eventdev, and another helper function could take a list of <eventdev, ethdev> pairs and return true if any don't have an inbuilt port.
