This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support for
callbacks at the RX and TX stages. This allows packet processing to be done on
packets before they get returned to applications using rte_eth_rx_burst call.
Use case: the first use case for this is to enable a consistent
Hi Bruce,
Callbacks, as hooks for applications, give more flexibility and are
generally a good idea.
In DPDK the main issue will be to avoid performance degradation.
I see you use "unlikely" for callback branching.
Could we reduce more the impact of this test by removing the queue array,
i.e. havi
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Callbacks, as hooks for applications, give more flexibility and are
> generally a good idea.
> In DPDK the main issue will be to avoid performance degradation.
> I see you use "unlikely" for callback branching.
> Coul
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:33:07PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Callbacks, as hooks for applications, give more flexibility and are
> > generally a good idea.
> > In DPDK the main issue will be to avoid perf
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:47:21 +
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support for
> callbacks at the RX and TX stages. This allows packet processing to be done on
> packets before they get returned to applications using rte_eth_rx_burst cal
f Of Bruce Richardson
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 10:17 PM
To: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/3] DPDK ethdev callback support
This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support for
callbacks at the RX and TX stages. This allows packet processing to be done o
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:47:09PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:33:07PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > Hi Bruce,
> > >
> > > Callbacks, as hooks for applications, give more flexibility and are
> >
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:31:57AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:47:21 +
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
> > This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support
> > for
> > callbacks at the RX and TX stages. This allows packet processing to be don
dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 10:17 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/3] DPDK ethdev callback support
>
> This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support for
> callbacks at t
at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/3] DPDK ethdev callback support
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 04:23:21AM +, Vithal S Mohare wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
>
> For example, for a port type that does not support RSS, a callback on RX can
> be configured to calculate a h
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:28:08AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:47:09PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:33:07PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > Hi Bruce,
> > > >
>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:28:08AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:47:09PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:33:07PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 0
dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/3] DPDK ethdev callback support
>
> Agree. As the mbuf is already received in the rx-q, may not yield great
> advantage.
> On side note, any plans to support RSS for L2 packets ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce
Hi Bruce,
I haven't seen the third patch of you patch set.
Just want to know if only me missed.
Thanks,
Michael
On 12/23/2014 12:48 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> This RFC is for a small addition to the ethdev library, to add in support for
> callbacks at the RX and TX stages. This allows packet
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:33:07PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Callbacks, as hooks for applications, give more flexibility and are
> > generally a good idea.
> > In DPDK the main issue will be to avoid perf
15 matches
Mail list logo
