[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem
orika at mellanox.com
Tue Feb 25 08:48:54 CET 2020
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 7:57 AM
> To: Ori Kam <orika at mellanox.com>
> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj at marvell.com>; xiang.w.wang at intel.com; dpdk-dev
> <dev at dpdk.org>; Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>; Shahaf
> Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>; Opher Reviv <opher at mellanox.com>; Alex
> Rosenbaum <alexr at mellanox.com>; dovrat at marvell.com; Prasun Kapoor
> <pkapoor at marvell.com>; Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta at nxp.com>; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; yang.a.hong at intel.com;
> harry.chang at intel.com; gu.jian1 at zte.com.cn; shanjiangh at chinatelecom.cn;
> zhangy.yun at chinatelecom.cn; lixingfu at huachentel.com; wushuai at inspur.com;
> yuyingxia at yxlink.com; fanchenggang at sunyainfo.com;
> davidfgao at tencent.com; liuzhong1 at chinaunicom.cn;
> zhaoyong11 at huawei.com; oc at yunify.com; jim at netgate.com;
> hongjun.ni at intel.com; j.bromhead at titan-ic.com; deri at ntop.org;
> fc at napatech.com; arthur.su at lionic.com; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] regexdev: introduce regexdev subsystem
> > > 4) app/test/test_regexdev.c like app/test/test_eventdev.c
> > We started to create a super basic app, after the API will be finalized and we
> will have HW
> > we can push it. (if you need it faster than feel free)
> A simple Unit test case needs to be present for the APIs. On the
> course of developing common code,
> it can be developed to test the common code with dummy/skeleton driver.
Agree this is what we are currently have.
> > > 5) Need a maintainer for maintaining the regex subsystem
> > >
> > We wish to maintain it if you agree.
> Yes. Please.
> > > >
> > > > One more thing, regarding the ops structure, I think it is better to split it
> to 2
> > > different
> > > > structures one enque and one for dequeue, since there are no real shared
> > > data and we will
> > > > be able to save memory, what do you think?
> > >
> > > Ops are allocated from mempool so it will be overhead to manage both.
> > > moreover, some
> > > of the fields added in req can be used for resp as info. cryptodev
> > > follows the similar concept,
> > > I think, we can have symmetry with cryptodev wherever is possible to avoid
> > > end-user to learn new API models.
> > True that there will be overhead with 2 mempools (small one)
> > but lets assume 255 results. This means that the buffer should be 255 *
> sizeof(rte_regex_match) = 2K
> > also this will enable us to replace groupX with group which will allow even
> more groups.
> > In addition don't think that crypto is a good example.
> > The main difference is that in RegEx the output is different format then the
> # IMO, Some of the fields may be useful for a response as well. I
> think application may be interested in following
> req filed in the response.
> a) buf_addr
I don't see how this can be used in the response. since if working in out of order result.
you don’t know which result will be returned.
I also think it is error prone to use the same op for the enqueue and dequeue.
> b) scan_size
Please see above.
> c) user_id (This would be main one)
> # Having two mempools adds overhead per lcore L1 cache usage and extra
> complexity to the application.
> # IMO, From a performance perspective, one mempool is good due to less
> stress on the cache and it is costly to
> add new mempool for HW mempool implementations.
> # I think, group use case we can add it when it required by
> introducing "matches_start_offset" field, which will
> tell the req, where is the end of group and where "matches" start
> with single mempool scheme also.
> # I think, one of the other use case for "matches_start_offset" that,
> It may possible to put vendor-specific
> opaque data. It will be filled by driver on response. The application
> can reference the matches as
> struct rte_regex_match *matches = RTE_PTR_ADD(ops, ops-
O.K for now we will keep it as is, and we will see what will be in the future.
> > > I assume you will send the v4 with these comments. I think, with v4 we
> > > can start implementing common library code.
> > Just need to agree on the split (one more iteration )
> > and I will start working on the common code.
I'm starting to work on V4 with all comments so the RFC will be acked and then will start
coding the rest of the common code.
More information about the dev