[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: set default

Akhil Goyal akhil.goyal at nxp.com
Tue Nov 5 09:01:46 CET 2019


Hi Konstantin,

> 
> Hi Akhil,
> 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11/10/2019 14:40, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This patchset would need ack from more vendors as it will impact
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > on a key example application which is normally demonstrated to
> > > > > > customers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IPSec library is still evolving and there are new functionality
> > > > > > > > added every
> > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > Atleast from NXP side we are not OK with this change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What can be changed in the library to make it acceptable as a
> > > > > > > default in this example?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are observing performance issues with ipsec library. So would
> > > > > > request other Vendors to confirm if they are OK with the performance
> > > > numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you give some details on the performance issues you are seeing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We were observing about 4-5% drop when using the ipsec-lib instead of
> the
> > > > Legacy code path. We would again measure it on RC1. That is why I say, I
> will
> > > > Hold this patch till RC2, unless some other vendor also confirms that.
> > >
> > > Is there any update on performance measurements on 19.11-rc1 ?
> > >
> > The performance impact of this patch is huge ~10% w.r.t. 19.11-rc1 base on
> NXP hardware.
> >
> > We cannot merge this. Anoob also reported performance issues on Marvell
> hardware.
> 
> Sure, 10% is a lot, so more than understandable.
> Though, I think we do need to decide our future goals for it.
> I see two main options here:
> 1.  Make lib code-path on par with legacy one in terms of performance,
>      deprecate and then remove legacy code-path.
>      Till that happen (deprecation/removal) to minimize code divergence,
>       forbid to add new features to legacy code path only.
>      New features should be added to both paths, or library code path.
> Obviously that one looks like a preferred option to me,
> but it requires some effort from all interested parties (Intel, NXP, Marvell, ...).
> If everyone is ok with it, then I think it would be good to have some draft
> timeline here.
> If you guys are not interested in this effort, then the only other approach I can
> think about:
> 2. split ipsec-secgw app into 2 (one using librte_ipsec, second using raw devices
> (legacy one)).
>     We probably can still try to keep some code shared by 2 apps:
>     (configuration/initialization/session management (SAD, SPD)),
>     but actual packet processing path will be different.
> I really don't like that option, but I think we need to come-up with clear decision,
> one way or another.
> 

IMO, Option 1 is the only way forward. From NXP side, we can start our work on this post 19.11 release and should target in 20.02 release.

Regards,
Akhil
 


More information about the dev mailing list