[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom requirement

De Lara Guarch, Pablo pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com
Thu Jun 28 13:41:17 CEST 2018


Hi Anoob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph, Anoob [mailto:Anoob.Joseph at caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:56 AM
> To: Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Ankur Dwivedi
> <ankur.dwivedi at caviumnetworks.com>; Jerin Jacob
> <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>; Narayana Prasad
> <narayanaprasad.athreya at caviumnetworks.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cryptodev: add min headroom and tailroom
> requirement
> 
> Hi Declan,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anoob
> 
> 
> On 26-06-2018 15:42, Doherty, Declan wrote:
> > External Email
> >
> > On 19/06/2018 7:26 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> >> Enabling crypto devs to specify the minimum headroom and tailroom it
> >> expects in the mbuf. For net PMDs, standard headroom has to be
> >> honoured by applications, which is not strictly followed for crypto
> >> devs. This
> >
> > How is this done for NET PMDs, I don't see anything explicit in the
> > ehtdev API for specification of headroom requirements.
> In rte_mbuf.h, the minimum size required for packets involved in rx/tx is
> specified and that considers headroom also. Applications usually use these
> default macros while creating mbufs which are involved in rx/tx.
> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h#n411
> >
> >> prevents crypto devs from using free space in mbuf (available as
> >> head/tailroom) for internal requirements in crypto operations.
> >> Addition of head/tailroom requirement will help PMDs to communicate
> >> such requirements to the application.
> >>
> >> The availability and use of head/tailroom is an optimization if the
> >> hardware supports use of head/tailroom for crypto-op info. For
> >> devices that do not support using the head/tailroom, they can
> >> continue to operate without any performance-drop.
> >>
> > Is there any variations in requirements for terms headroom/tailroom on
> > a per algorithmic basis or is it purely for the device?
> It is purely per device basis. The device can specify upper bounds for the
> head/tailroom. A device that even specified the room, may not even use the
> entire room in all cases. So it doesn't have to be algo specific.
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph at caviumnetworks.com>
> >> ---
> >>   doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
> >>   lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h | 6 ++++++
> >>   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> index 1ce692e..a547289 100644
> >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> >> @@ -122,3 +122,7 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >>     - Function ``rte_cryptodev_get_private_session_size()`` will be
> >> deprecated
> >>       in 18.05, and it gets replaced with
> >> ``rte_cryptodev_sym_get_private_session_size()``.
> >>       It will be removed in 18.08.
> >> +  - New field, ``min_headroom_req``, added in ``rte_cryptodev_info``
> >> structure. It will be
> >> +    added in 18.11.
> >> +  - New field, ``min_tailroom_req``, added in ``rte_cryptodev_info``
> >> structure. It will be
> >> +    added in 18.11.
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >> index 92ce6d4..fa944b8 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >> @@ -382,6 +382,12 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_info {
> >>       unsigned max_nb_queue_pairs;
> >>       /**< Maximum number of queues pairs supported by device. */
> >>
> >> +     uint32_t min_headroom_req;
> >> +     /**< Minimum mbuf headroom required by device */
> >> +
> >> +     uint32_t min_tailroom_req;
> >> +     /**< Minimum mbuf tailroom required by device */

I would add the word "mbuf" here, in the variable names (e.g. min_mbuf_headroom_req),
to be more explicit.

Also, just let you know that we are currently modifying the info structure in this release.
Therefore, I think we could make these changes in now and then you don't need to add deprecation notices on this,
but better to add the API Change in release notes.


More information about the dev mailing list