diff mbox series

[v4] doc: announce ring API change

Message ID 20190201143623.31135-1-gage.eads@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Rejected, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series [v4] doc: announce ring API change |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Eads, Gage Feb. 1, 2019, 2:36 p.m. UTC 
  In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change (additional
argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in librte_ring. This commit
updates the deprecation notice to pave the way for its inclusion in
19.08.

[1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html

Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
---
v4:
 - 19.05 -> 19.08
v3:
 - "two changes are planned" -> "one change is planned"
v2:
 - Drop the ABI change notice

 doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

Comments

Thomas Monjalon May 9, 2019, 11:29 p.m. UTC | #1 
01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:
> In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change (additional
> argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in librte_ring. This commit
> updates the deprecation notice to pave the way for its inclusion in
> 19.08.
> 
> [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>

There is still no agreement on this change?
Eads, Gage May 10, 2019, 2:53 p.m. UTC | #2 
> 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:
> > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change
> > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in
> > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the
> > way for its inclusion in 19.08.
> >
> > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
> 
> There is still no agreement on this change?
> 

Still none. I was hoping this discussion (http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead to some clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled.
Stephen Hemminger May 10, 2019, 2:58 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000
"Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com> wrote:

> > 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:  
> > > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change
> > > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in
> > > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the
> > > way for its inclusion in 19.08.
> > >
> > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>  
> > 
> > There is still no agreement on this change?
> >   
> 
> Still none. I was hoping this discussion (http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead to some clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled.

The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage.

Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking
rings are not necessary for all use cases.
Ola Liljedahl May 10, 2019, 3:19 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 07:58 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000
> "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:  
> In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change
> (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in
> librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the
> way for its inclusion in 19.08.
> 
> [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>  
> 
> There is still no agreement on this change?
>   
> 
> Still none. I was hoping this discussion (
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead to some
> clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled.
> 
> The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage.

It is also possible to do "non-blocking" (but not lock-free) rings with the
original element size (a pointer per ring slot) as implemented here:
https://github.com/ARM-software/progress64/blob/master/src/p64_ringbuf.c
Some extra (head&tail) metadata is required but I think there is space for that
in the rte_ring structure.

> Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking
> rings are not necessary for all use cases.

I proposed a new library ("rte_lfring") with lock-free rings here:
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124242.html
The lock-free design should be the same as in Gage's patch.

rte_lfring could of course be part of the rte_ring library.
Eads, Gage May 10, 2019, 4:28 p.m. UTC | #5 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 10:19 AM
> To: stephen@networkplumber.org; Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>
> Cc: arybchenko@solarflare.com; nd <nd@arm.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> olivier.matz@6wind.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: announce ring API change
> 
> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 07:58 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000
> > "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:
> > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change
> > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in
> > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the
> > way for its inclusion in 19.08.
> >
> > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
> >
> > There is still no agreement on this change?
> >
> >
> > Still none. I was hoping this discussion (
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead
> > to some clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled.
> >
> > The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage.
> 
> It is also possible to do "non-blocking" (but not lock-free) rings with the
> original element size (a pointer per ring slot) as implemented here:
> https://github.com/ARM-
> software/progress64/blob/master/src/p64_ringbuf.c
> Some extra (head&tail) metadata is required but I think there is space for
> that in the rte_ring structure.
> 
> > Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking
> > rings are not necessary for all use cases.
> 
> I proposed a new library ("rte_lfring") with lock-free rings here:
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124242.html
> The lock-free design should be the same as in Gage's patch.
> 
> rte_lfring could of course be part of the rte_ring library.
> 

Just read through the API/ABI stability discussion (https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128969.html). I'll drop my patchset and work on supporting this lfring API instead.

Thanks,
Gage

> 
> --
> Ola Liljedahl, Networking System Architect, Arm Phone +46706866373, Skype
> ola.liljedahl
Olivier Matz May 13, 2019, 11:46 a.m. UTC | #6 
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:28:16PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 10:19 AM
> > To: stephen@networkplumber.org; Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>
> > Cc: arybchenko@solarflare.com; nd <nd@arm.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Richardson,
> > Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > olivier.matz@6wind.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> > <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: announce ring API change
> > 
> > On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 07:58 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000
> > > "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads:
> > > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change
> > > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in
> > > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the
> > > way for its inclusion in 19.08.
> > >
> > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
> > >
> > > There is still no agreement on this change?
> > >
> > >
> > > Still none. I was hoping this discussion (
> > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead
> > > to some clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled.
> > >
> > > The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage.
> > 
> > It is also possible to do "non-blocking" (but not lock-free) rings with the
> > original element size (a pointer per ring slot) as implemented here:
> > https://github.com/ARM-
> > software/progress64/blob/master/src/p64_ringbuf.c
> > Some extra (head&tail) metadata is required but I think there is space for
> > that in the rte_ring structure.
> > 
> > > Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking
> > > rings are not necessary for all use cases.
> > 
> > I proposed a new library ("rte_lfring") with lock-free rings here:
> > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124242.html
> > The lock-free design should be the same as in Gage's patch.
> > 
> > rte_lfring could of course be part of the rte_ring library.
> > 
> 
> Just read through the API/ABI stability discussion
> (https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128969.html). I'll drop my
> patchset and work on supporting this lfring API instead.

+1

Given the discussions related to ABI stability, it looks better to
implement this in another library.

Olivier
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index d4aea4b46..93509e23a 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
@@ -83,3 +83,9 @@  Deprecation Notices
   - The size and layout of ``rte_cryptodev_qp_conf`` and syntax of
     ``rte_cryptodev_queue_pair_setup`` will change to to allow to use
     two different mempools for crypto and device private sessions.
+
+* ring: one change is planned for rte_ring in v19.08:
+
+  - rte_ring_get_memsize() will get a new ``flags`` parameter, so it can
+    calculate the memory required for rings that require more than 8B per entry
+    (such as the upcoming non-blocking ring).