Scalable scheduler requires to allocate shm memory for each queue.
This patch is to avoid shm namespace collisions and allow shm block
per queue.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wang
Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl
Reviewed-by: Brian Brooks
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
---
.../linux-generic/include/odp_
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Bill Fischofer
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ola Liljedahl
> wrote:
> > On 6 April 2017 at 13:48, Jerin Jacob
> > wrote:
> >> We see ORDERED->ATOMIC as main use case for basic packet forward.Stage
> >> 1(ORDERED) to process on N cores and Stage
Kevin Wang (1):
Use different name to create pool and queue
.../linux-generic/include/odp_config_internal.h| 2 +-
.../api/classification/odp_classification_basic.c | 8 ++---
.../classification/odp_classification_test_pmr.c | 42 +++---
test/common_plat/validation/api/
linux-gen: pktio: Just set the return value, and remove the
return() function at the failure branch.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2933
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wang
Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl
Reviewed-by: Brian Brooks
---
platform/linux-generic/pktio/loop.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 ins
Kevin Wang (1):
Miss an unlock operation before exit if error happens
platform/linux-generic/pktio/loop.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.7.4
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2933
Bug ID: 2933
Summary: Miss to call unlock if there are some errors happens
in loopback_send() function.
Product: OpenDataPlane - linux- generic reference
Version: master
Hardware
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2933
Kevin Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Miss to call unlock if |Miss to call unlock if
|there a
Added size parameter indicating the maximum number of events in the
queue and the corresponding queue capability changes.
Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
---
include/odp/api/spec/queue.h | 12
platform/linux-generic/odp_queue.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
di
Some queue implementations in ODP take queue size input. Cuckoo table is
modified to provide the queue size input while creating the queue.
Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
---
helper/cuckootable.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/helper/cuckootable.c b/helper/cuckootable.c
On 6 April 2017 at 13:54, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> I'm ok with this patch. That can go to master, not need for api-next.
>
> Maxim.
We need this to be in api-next as well so that we can drop this from V3.
Thank you,
Honnapppa
>
> On 04/06/17 20:09, Brian Brooks wrote:
>> On 04/05 01:24:44, Dmitry
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> On 04/06/17 13:35, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
>> On 5 April 2017 at 23:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>>> On 04/05/17 17:30, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
On 5 April 2017 at 14:50, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> On 04/05/17 06:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Bill Fischofer
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ola Liljedahl
> wrote:
>> On 6 April 2017 at 13:48, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:54:10 +0200
From: Ola Liljedahl
To: Brian Brooks
Cc: Jerin
I'm ok with this patch. That can go to master, not need for api-next.
Maxim.
On 04/06/17 20:09, Brian Brooks wrote:
> On 04/05 01:24:44, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> On 04.04.2017 23:34, Brian Brooks wrote:
>>> On 04/04 23:27:51, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
On 04.04.2017 23:26, Brian
On 04/06/17 13:35, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 23:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>> On 04/05/17 17:30, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2017 at 14:50, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
On 04/05/17 06:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> This can go into master/api-next as an independent patch.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On 6 April 2017 at 13:48, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>>> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:54:10 +0200
>>> From: Ola Liljedahl
>>> To: Brian Brooks
>>> Cc: Jerin Jacob ,
>>> "lng-odp@lists.linaro.org"
>>> Subject: Re: [lng-od
On 6 April 2017 at 13:48, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> -Original Message-
>> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:54:10 +0200
>> From: Ola Liljedahl
>> To: Brian Brooks
>> Cc: Jerin Jacob ,
>> "lng-odp@lists.linaro.org"
>> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 00/16] A scalable software
>> scheduler
On 04/06 21:02:54, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> On 06.04.2017 20:25, Brian Brooks wrote:
> > See [1] for details.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2017-April/029684.html
>
> Brian, not that this is a good long description of the commit.
Thank you.
> I'd still suggest t
On 06.04.2017 20:25, Brian Brooks wrote:
> See [1] for details.
>
> [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2017-April/029684.html
Brian, not that this is a good long description of the commit.
I'd still suggest to just change the line setting CFLAGS from just
-mcx16 to -mcx16 -Werror. An
See [1] for details.
[1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2017-April/029684.html
Signed-off-by: Brian Brooks
---
configure.ac | 30 --
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 9320f360..d364b8dd 10064
On 04/05 01:24:44, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> On 04.04.2017 23:34, Brian Brooks wrote:
> > On 04/04 23:27:51, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> >> On 04.04.2017 23:26, Brian Brooks wrote:
> >>> On 04/04 23:04:10, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> On 04.04.2017 21:47, Brian Brooks wrote:
>
Remove precalculated CRCs from test packets. Some pktio devices may drop
CRCs causing the tests to fail.
Signed-off-by: Matias Elo
---
test/common_plat/validation/api/pktio/parser.h | 24
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/common_plat/va
Please review this patch. TM very often fails in Travis CI. This patch has
to fix it.
Maxim.
On 31 March 2017 at 23:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> tm test fails time to time in Travis environment. Because
> of we can not control that machine we can not do things like
> taskset and core isolation the
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/Linaro/odp
Commit: 0955fbb395dc1651a8bcd473beae2154d39f4a69
https://github.com/Linaro/odp/commit/0955fbb395dc1651a8bcd473beae2154d39f4a69
Author: Balakrishna Garapati
Date: 2017-04-06 (Thu, 06 Apr 2017)
Changed paths:
M
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Radosław Biernacki wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thank you for reply and sorry for my long reply.
>
> IMHO the description which you give could be copied to
> doc/users-guide/users-guide.adoc as there are not many information how this
> should work across all implementation
Hi Bill,
Thank you for reply and sorry for my long reply.
IMHO the description which you give could be copied to
doc/users-guide/users-guide.adoc as there are not many information how this
should work across all implementations.
I don't fully understand following sentence "since each individual i
Hi Bill,
I will post a patch implementing this proposal next week.
Regards,
Bala
On 6 April 2017 at 18:07, Bill Fischofer wrote:
> Bala, any idea when this can advance from the RFC stage to a real patch?
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Bala Manoharan
> wrote:
>> Regards,
>> Bala
>>
>>
>>
We should also take into account Barry's earlier RFC for adding public
key support. See http://patches.opendataplane.org/patch/4985/ as this
is closely related to this RFC.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Kartha, Umesh wrote:
> Thanks for comments, please go through my replies.
>
> Regards,
> Ume
It's OK to carry over my review for trivial changes like this.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Balakrishna Garapati
wrote:
> makes it easy to define odp_errno to dpdk rteerrno and fixes
> linking issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balakrishna Garapati
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Bill Fischofer
> ---
> s
I merged v2 for that to api-next. Initially I applied to master not to api
next. Please check that patches are merged.
Maxim.
On 5 April 2017 at 09:03, Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <
matias@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Apr 2017, at 18:30, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> >
> > breaks b
Bala, any idea when this can advance from the RFC stage to a real patch?
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Bala Manoharan
wrote:
> Regards,
> Bala
>
>
> On 6 April 2017 at 00:53, Brian Brooks wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Balasubramanian Manoharan
>> wrote:
>>> Adds support to spread
Thanks for comments, please go through my replies.
Regards,
Umesh
From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 4:11 PM
To: Kartha, Umesh; lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
Cc: Manoharan, Balasubramanian; Murthy, Nidadavolu; Manapragada, Ram Kumar
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [RFC][PATCH] added a
Use separate priority queues for different groups. Sharing
the same priority queue over multiple groups caused multiple
issues:
* latency and ordering issues when threads push back
events (from wrong groups) to the tail of the priority queue
* unnecessary contention (scaling issues) when threads
User may give number of scheduling groups to test
scheduler performance with other that the default (all
threads) group. Both pktios and threads are allocated
into these groups with round robin. The number of groups
may not exceed number of pktios or worker threads.
Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen
A precalculated table is more flexible for tunning weights
than hard coding. As future development, the table may be
updated with different weights at init or run time.
Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen
---
platform/linux-generic/odp_schedule.c | 51 ++-
1 file chan
-Original Message-
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:54:10 +0200
> From: Ola Liljedahl
> To: Brian Brooks
> Cc: Jerin Jacob ,
> "lng-odp@lists.linaro.org"
> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 00/16] A scalable software
> scheduler
>
> On 5 April 2017 at 18:50, Brian Brooks wrote:
> >
From: Nikhil Agarwal
Signed-off-by: Nikhil Agarwal
---
/** Email created from pull request 8 (NikhilA-Linaro:master)
** https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/8
** Patch: https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/8.patch
** Base sha: ff6c083358f97f7b5b261d8e75ca7a2eaaab5dea
** Merge commit sha: b6d92e4
From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
Currently ODP testsuite only verifies generation of digests. Let's also
verify that checking the digest actually works. Test that check function
will accept valid digest and that it will reject wrong digests.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
---
/** Email cre
for this patch series,
Reviewed-by: Balakrishna Garapati
/Krishna
On 31 March 2017 at 14:18, Matias Elo wrote:
> Previously packet_test_concatsplit() could fail on some pool
> implementations as the pool ran out of buffers. Increase default pools size
> and use capability to make sure the val
From: Bill Fischofer
The ODP_STATIC_ASSERT() macro expands to _Static_assert(), however when
used in C++ programs this needs to expand to static_assert().
This resolves Bug https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2852
Reported-by: Moshe Tubul
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer
---
/** Email create
From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
Currently ODP testsuite only verifies generation of digests. Let's also
verify that checking the digest actually works. Test that check function
will accept valid digest and that it will reject wrong digests.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
---
/** Email cre
Regards,
Bala
On 6 April 2017 at 00:53, Brian Brooks wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Balasubramanian Manoharan
> wrote:
>> Adds support to spread packet from a single CoS to multiple queues by
>> configuring hashing at CoS level.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan
>> ---
>
On 5 April 2017 at 18:50, Brian Brooks wrote:
> On 04/05 21:27:37, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:47:52 -0500
>> > From: Brian Brooks
>> > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
>> > Subject: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 00/16] A scalable software scheduler
>
On 05.04.2017 21:36, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 17:33, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
> wrote:
>> On 05.04.2017 17:40, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2017 at 14:20, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
On 04/05/17 01:46, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On 4 April 2017 at 21:25, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>
On 05.04.2017 13:02, Umesh Kartha wrote:
> Asymmetric crypto algorithms are essential in protocols such as SSL/TLS.
> As the current ODP crypto library lacks support for asymmetric crypto
> algorithms, this RFC is an attempt to address it and add support for the
> same.
If you target TLS, you shou
On 5 April 2017 at 23:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> On 04/05/17 17:30, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
>> On 5 April 2017 at 14:50, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>>> On 04/05/17 06:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
This can go into master/api-next as an independent patch. Agree?
>>>
>>> agree. If we accept implementat
45 matches
Mail list logo
