Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] AVX2 Vectorized Rx/Tx functions for i40e

2018-01-09 Thread John Fastabend
On 01/09/2018 06:32 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > This patch adds an AVX2 vectorized path to the i40e driver, based on the > existing SSE4.2 version. Using AVX2 instructions gives better performance > than the SSE version, though the percentage increase depends on the exact > settings used. For exa

Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI Questions

2016-12-15 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-12-15 09:16 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:59 + > Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> <...> >> >>> >>> Which raises a couple of questions: >>> 1. Why is DPDK still keeping KNI support for Intel specific ethtool >>> functionality. >>> This always br

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 00/25] Generic flow API (rte_flow)

2017-01-04 Thread John Fastabend
[...] >>> Well, it should be easier to answer if you have a specific use-case in mind >>> you would like to support but that cannot be expressed with the API as >>> defined in [1], in which case please share it with the community. >> >> A use-case would be implementing OvS DPIF flow offload using

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF on i40e

2017-01-13 Thread John Fastabend
On 17-01-11 07:47 PM, Chen, Jing D wrote: > Hi, Vincent, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:30 PM >> To: Scott Daniels ; dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: kaust...@research.att.com; az5...@att.com; Chen, Jing D >> >> Su

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 00/25] Support VFD on i40e

2017-01-13 Thread John Fastabend
On 17-01-11 06:51 AM, JOSHI, KAUSTUBH (KAUSTUBH) wrote: > Also, the kernel drivers have no concept of passing VF messages to upstream > "decision making” (or policy enforcement) software like VFd. > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kaustubh Joshi > mailto:kaust...@research.att.com>> wrote: > > W

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-07-23 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-07-21 12:20 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > Hi Jerin, > > Sorry, looks like I missed your reply. Please see below. > Hi Adrian, Sorry for a bit delay but a few comments that may be worth considering. To start with completely agree on the general problem statement and the nice summary of al

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-07-25 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-07-25 04:32 AM, Rahul Lakkireddy wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > On Thursday, July 07/21/16, 2016 at 19:07:38 +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: >> Hi Rahul, >> >> Please see below. >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:43:37PM +0530, Rahul Lakkireddy wrote: >>> Hi Adrien, >>> >>> The proposal looks very goo

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-02 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-07-23 02:10 PM, John Fastabend wrote: > On 16-07-21 12:20 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: >> Hi Jerin, >> >> Sorry, looks like I missed your reply. Please see below. >> > > Hi Adrian, > > Sorry for a bit delay but a few comments that may be worth con

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-03 Thread John Fastabend
[...] Considering that allowed pattern/actions combinations cannot be known in advance and would result in an unpractically large number of capabilities to expose, a method is provided to validate a given rule from the current device configuration state without actually a

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-03 Thread John Fastabend
[...] >> The proposal looks very good. It satisfies most of the features >> supported by Chelsio NICs. We are looking for suggestions on exposing >> more additional features supported by Chelsio NICs via this API. >> >> Chelsio NICs have two regions in which filters can be pl

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-09 Thread John Fastabend
[...] >> I'm not sure I understand 'bit granularity' here. I would say we have >> devices now that have rather strange restrictions due to hardware >> implementation. Going forward we should get better hardware and a lot >> of this will go away in my view. Yes this is a long term view and >> doesn

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-09 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-08-04 06:24 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:11:56PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote: >> [...] >> >>>>>>>> The proposal looks very good. It satisfies most of the features >>>>>>>> supported by Chelsio

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-10 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-08-10 04:02 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > [...] >>> Just an idea, could some kind of meta pattern items specifying time >>> constraints for a rule address this issue? Say, how long (cycles/ms) the P

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-10 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-08-10 06:37 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:47:44PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote: >> On 16-08-04 06:24 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:11:56PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > [...] >>>> The problem is k

[dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] ethdev: introduce generic flow API

2016-08-22 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-08-19 12:32 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > This new API supersedes all the legacy filter types described in > rte_eth_ctrl.h. It is slightly higher level and as a result relies more on > PMDs to process and validate flow rules. > > It has the following benefits: > > - A unified API is easier

[dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] Generic flow director/filtering/classification API

2016-08-22 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-08-19 12:32 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks to many for the positive and constructive feedback I've received so > far. Here is the updated specification (v0.7) at last. > > I've attempted to address as many comments as possible but could not > process them all just yet. A n