Hi All,

Sorry for the delay. Please see responses inline.


On 1/12/2018 8:50 AM, Verma, Shally wrote:
> Hi Fiona
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Trahe, Fiona [mailto:fiona.tr...@intel.com]
>> Sent: 12 January 2018 00:24
>> To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; Ahmed Mansour
>> <ahmed.mans...@nxp.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Athreya, Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>;
>> Gupta, Ashish <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Sahu, Sunila
>> <sunila.s...@cavium.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Challa, Mahipal
>> <mahipal.cha...@cavium.com>; Jain, Deepak K <deepak.k.j...@intel.com>;
>> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Roy Pledge
>> <roy.ple...@nxp.com>; Youri Querry <youri.querr...@nxp.com>; Trahe,
>> Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [RFC v2] doc compression API for DPDK
>> Hi Shally, Ahmed,
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:shally.ve...@cavium.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 12:55 PM
>>> To: Ahmed Mansour <ahmed.mans...@nxp.com>; Trahe, Fiona
>> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>> Cc: Athreya, Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>;
>> Gupta, Ashish
>>> <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Sahu, Sunila <sunila.s...@cavium.com>;
>> De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Challa, Mahipal
>> <mahipal.cha...@cavium.com>; Jain, Deepak K
>>> <deepak.k.j...@intel.com>; Hemant Agrawal
>> <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Roy Pledge
>>> <roy.ple...@nxp.com>; Youri Querry <youri.querr...@nxp.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [RFC v2] doc compression API for DPDK
>>> HI Ahmed
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ahmed Mansour [mailto:ahmed.mans...@nxp.com]
>>>> Sent: 10 January 2018 00:38
>>>> To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; Trahe, Fiona
>>>> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Athreya, Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>;
>>>> Gupta, Ashish <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Sahu, Sunila
>>>> <sunila.s...@cavium.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>>> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Challa, Mahipal
>>>> <mahipal.cha...@cavium.com>; Jain, Deepak K
>> <deepak.k.j...@intel.com>;
>>>> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Roy Pledge
>>>> <roy.ple...@nxp.com>; Youri Querry <youri.querr...@nxp.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC v2] doc compression API for DPDK
>>>> Hi Shally,
>>>> Thanks for the summary. It is very helpful. Please see comments below
>>>> On 1/4/2018 6:45 AM, Verma, Shally wrote:
>>>>> This is an RFC v2 document to brief understanding and requirements on
>>>> compression API proposal in DPDK. It is based on "[RFC v3] Compression
>> API
>>>> in DPDK
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
>> k.org%2Fdev%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F32331%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cahm
>> ed.mansour%40nxp.com%7C80bd3270430c473fa71d08d55368a0e1%7C686ea
>> 1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636506631207323264&sdata=JF
>>>> tOnJxajgXX7s3DMZ79K7VVM7TXO8lBd6rNeVlsHDg%3D&reserved=0 ".
>>>>> Intention of this document is to align on concepts built into
>> compression
>>>> API, its usage and identify further requirements.
>>>>> Going further it could be a base to Compression Module Programmer
>>>> Guide.
>>>>> Current scope is limited to
>>>>> - definition of the terminology which makes up foundation of
>> compression
>>>> API
>>>>> - typical API flow expected to use by applications
>>>>> - Stateless and Stateful operation definition and usage after RFC v1 doc
>>>> review
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.
>>>> dpdk.narkive.com%2FCHS5l01B%2Fdpdk-dev-rfc-v1-doc-compression-
>> api-
>>>> for-
>> dpdk&data=02%7C01%7Cahmed.mansour%40nxp.com%7C80bd3270430c473
>> fa71d08d55368a0e1%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6
>> 36506631207323264&sdata=Fy7xKIyxZX97i7vEM6NqgrvnqKrNrWOYLwIA5dEH
>>>> QNQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>>> 1. Overview
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> A. Compression Methodologies in compression API
>>>>> ===========================================
>>>>> DPDK compression supports two types of compression methodologies:
>>>>> - Stateless - each data object is compressed individually without any
>>>> reference to previous data,
>>>>> - Stateful -  each data object is compressed with reference to previous
>> data
>>>> object i.e. history of data is needed for compression / decompression
>>>>> For more explanation, please refer RFC
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw
>> ww.ietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1951.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cahmed.mansour%40nx
>> p.com%7C80bd3270430c473fa71d08d55368a0e1%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd9
>> 9c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636506631207323264&sdata=pfp2VX1w3UxH5YLcL
>>>> 2R%2BvKXNeS7jP46CsASq0B1SETw%3D&reserved=0
>>>>> To support both methodologies, DPDK compression introduces two key
>>>> concepts: Session and Stream.
>>>>> B. Notion of a session in compression API
>>>>> ==================================
>>>>> A Session in DPDK compression is a logical entity which is setup one-
>> time
>>>> with immutable parameters i.e. parameters that don't change across
>>>> operations and devices.
>>>>> A session can be shared across multiple devices and multiple operations
>>>> simultaneously.
>>>>> A typical Session parameters includes info such as:
>>>>> - compress / decompress
>>>>> - compression algorithm and associated configuration parameters
>>>>> Application can create different sessions on a device initialized with
>>>> same/different xforms. Once a session is initialized with one xform it
>> cannot
>>>> be re-initialized.
>>>>> C. Notion of stream in compression API
>>>>>  =======================================
>>>>> Unlike session which carry common set of information across
>> operations, a
>>>> stream in DPDK compression is a logical entity which identify related set
>> of
>>>> operations and carry operation specific information as needed by device
>>>> during its processing.
>>>>> It is device specific data structure which is opaque to application, setup
>> and
>>>> maintained by device.
>>>>> A stream can be used with *only* one op at a time i.e. no two
>> operations
>>>> can share same stream simultaneously.
>>>>> A stream is *must* for stateful ops processing and optional for
>> stateless
>>>> (Please see respective sections for more details).
>>>>> This enables sharing of a session by multiple threads handling different
>>>> data set as each op carry its own context (internal states, history buffers
>> et
>>>> el) in its attached stream.
>>>>> Application should call rte_comp_stream_create() and attach to op
>> before
>>>> beginning of  operation processing and free via rte_comp_stream_free()
>>>> after its complete.
>>>>> C. Notion of burst operations in compression API
>>>>>  =======================================
>>>>> A burst in DPDK compression is an array of operations where each op
>> carry
>>>> independent set of data. i.e. a burst can look like:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>               enque_burst (|op1.no_flush | op2.no_flush | op3.flush_final 
>>>>> |
>>>> op4.no_flush | op5.no_flush |)
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>> Where, op1 .. op5 are all independent of each other and carry entirely
>>>> different set of data.
>>>>> Each op can be attached to same/different session but *must* be
>> attached
>>>> to different stream.
>>>>> Each op (struct rte_comp_op) carry compression/decompression
>>>> operational parameter and is both an input/output parameter.
>>>>> PMD gets source, destination and checksum information at input and
>>>> update it with bytes consumed and produced and checksum at output.
>>>>> Since each operation in a burst is independent and thus can complete
>> out-
>>>> of-order,  applications which need ordering, should setup per-op user
>> data
>>>> area with reordering information so that it can determine enqueue order
>> at
>>>> deque.
>>>>> Also if multiple threads calls enqueue_burst() on same queue pair then
>> it's
>>>> application onus to use proper locking mechanism to ensure exclusive
>>>> enqueuing of operations.
>>>>> D. Stateless Vs Stateful
>>>>> ===================
>>>>> Compression API provide RTE_COMP_FF_STATEFUL feature flag for
>> PMD
>>>> to reflect its support for Stateful operation. Each op carry an op type
>>>> indicating if it's to be processed stateful or stateless.
>>>>> D.1 Compression API Stateless operation
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> An op is processed stateless if it has
>>>>> -              flush value is set to RTE_FLUSH_FULL or RTE_FLUSH_FINAL
>>>> (required only on compression side),
>>>>> -  op_type set to RTE_COMP_OP_STATELESS
>>>>> -              All-of the required input and sufficient large output 
>>>>> buffer to
>> store
>>>> output i.e. OUT_OF_SPACE can never occur.
>>>>> When all of the above conditions are met, PMD initiates stateless
>>>> processing and releases acquired resources after processing of current
>>>> operation is complete i.e. full input consumed and full output written.
>> [Fiona] I think 3rd condition conflicts with D1.1 below and anyway cannot be
>> a precondition. i.e.
>> PMD must initiate stateless processing based on RTE_COMP_OP_STATELESS.
>> It can't always know if the output buffer is big enough before processing, it
>> must process the input data and
>> only when it has consumed it all can it know that all the output data fits or
>> doesn't fit in the output buffer.
>> I'd suggest rewording as follows:
>> An op is processed statelessly if op_type is set to RTE_COMP_OP_STATELESS
>> In this case
>> - The flush value must be set to RTE_FLUSH_FULL or RTE_FLUSH_FINAL
>> (required only on compression side),
>> - All of the input data must be in the src buffer
>> - The dst buffer should be sufficiently large enough to hold the expected
>> output
>> The PMD acquires the necessary resources to process the op. After
>> processing of current operation is
>> complete, whether successful or not, it releases acquired resources and no
>> state, history or data is
>> held in the PMD or carried over to subsequent ops.
>> In SUCCESS case full input is consumed and full output written and status is
>> OUT-OF-SPACE as D1.1 below.
> [Shally] Ok. Agreed.
>>>>> Application can optionally attach a stream to such ops. In such case,
>>>> application must attach different stream to each op.
>>>>> Application can enqueue stateless burst via making consecutive
>>>> enque_burst() calls i.e. Following is relevant usage:
>>>>> enqueued = rte_comp_enque_burst (dev_id, qp_id, ops1, nb_ops);
>>>>> enqueued = rte_comp_enque_burst(dev_id, qp_id, ops2, nb_ops);
>>>>> *Note - Every call has different ops array i.e.  same rte_comp_op array
>>>> *cannot be re-enqueued* to process next batch of data until previous
>> ones
>>>> are completely processed.
>>>>> D.1.1 Stateless and OUT_OF_SPACE
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> OUT_OF_SPACE is a condition when output buffer runs out of space
>> and
>>>> where PMD still has more data to produce. If PMD run into such
>> condition,
>>>> then it's an error condition in stateless processing.
>>>>> In such case, PMD resets itself and return with status
>>>> RTE_COMP_OP_STATUS_OUT_OF_SPACE with produced=consumed=0
>> i.e.
>>>> no input read, no output written.
>>>>> Application can resubmit an full input with larger output buffer size.
>>>> [Ahmed] Can we add an option to allow the user to read the data that
>> was
>>>> produced while still reporting OUT_OF_SPACE? this is mainly useful for
>>>> decompression applications doing search.
>>> [Shally] It is there but applicable for stateful operation type (please 
>>> refer to
>> handling out_of_space under
>>> "Stateful Section").
>>> By definition, "stateless" here means that application (such as IPCOMP)
>> knows maximum output size
>>> guaranteedly and ensure that uncompressed data size cannot grow more
>> than provided output buffer.
>>> Such apps can submit an op with type = STATELESS and provide full input,
>> then PMD assume it has
>>> sufficient input and output and thus doesn't need to maintain any contexts
>> after op is processed.
>>> If application doesn't know about max output size, then it should process it
>> as stateful op i.e. setup op
>>> with type = STATEFUL and attach a stream so that PMD can maintain
>> relevant context to handle such
>>> condition.
>> [Fiona] There may be an alternative that's useful for Ahmed, while still
>> respecting the stateless concept.
>> In Stateless case where a PMD reports OUT_OF_SPACE in decompression
>> case
>> it could also return consumed=0, produced = x, where x>0. X indicates the
>> amount of valid data which has
>>  been written to the output buffer. It is not complete, but if an application
>> wants to search it it may be sufficient.
>> If the application still wants the data it must resubmit the whole input 
>> with a
>> bigger output buffer, and
>>  decompression will be repeated from the start, it
>>  cannot expect to continue on as the PMD has not maintained state, history
>> or data.
>> I don't think there would be any need to indicate this in capabilities, PMDs
>> which cannot provide this
>> functionality would always return produced=consumed=0, while PMDs which
>> can could set produced > 0.
>> If this works for you both, we could consider a similar case for compression.
> [Shally] Sounds Fine to me. Though then in that case, consume should also be 
> updated to actual consumed by PMD.
> Setting consumed = 0 with produced > 0 doesn't correlate. 
[Ahmed]I like Fiona's suggestion, but I also do not like the implication
of returning consumed = 0. At the same time returning consumed = y
implies to the user that it can proceed from the middle. I prefer the
consumed = 0 implementation, but I think a different return is needed to
distinguish it from OUT_OF_SPACE that the use can recover from. Perhaps
future PMD implementations to provide recover-ability even in STATELESS
mode if they so wish. In this model STATELESS or STATEFUL would be a
hint for the PMD implementation to make optimizations for each case, but
it does not force the PMD implementation to limit functionality if it
can provide recover-ability.
>>>>> D.2 Compression API Stateful operation
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>  A Stateful operation in DPDK compression means application invokes
>>>> enqueue burst() multiple times to process related chunk of data either
>>>> because
>>>>> - Application broke data into several ops, and/or
>>>>> - PMD ran into out_of_space situation during input processing
>>>>> In case of either one or all of the above conditions, PMD is required to
>>>> maintain state of op across enque_burst() calls and
>>>>> ops are setup with op_type RTE_COMP_OP_STATEFUL, and begin with
>>>> flush value = RTE_COMP_NO/SYNC_FLUSH and end at flush value
>>>>> D.2.1 Stateful operation state maintenance
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> It is always an ideal expectation from application that it should parse
>>>> through all related chunk of source data making its mbuf-chain and
>> enqueue
>>>> it for stateless processing.
>>>>> However, if it need to break it into several enqueue_burst() calls, then
>> an
>>>> expected call flow would be something like:
>>>>> enqueue_burst( |op.no_flush |)
>>>> [Ahmed] The work is now in flight to the PMD.The user will call dequeue
>>>> burst in a loop until all ops are received. Is this correct?
>>>>> deque_burst(op) // should dequeue before we enqueue next
>>> [Shally] Yes. Ideally every submitted op need to be dequeued. However
>> this illustration is specifically in
>>> context of stateful op processing to reflect if a stream is broken into
>> chunks, then each chunk should be
>>> submitted as one op at-a-time with type = STATEFUL and need to be
>> dequeued first before next chunk is
>>> enqueued.
>>>>> enqueue_burst( |op.no_flush |)
>>>>> deque_burst(op) // should dequeue before we enqueue next
>>>>> enqueue_burst( |op.full_flush |)
>>>> [Ahmed] Why now allow multiple work items in flight? I understand that
>>>> occasionaly there will be OUT_OF_SPACE exception. Can we just
>> distinguish
>>>> the response in exception cases?
>>> [Shally] Multiples ops are allowed in flight, however condition is each op 
>>> in
>> such case is independent of
>>> each other i.e. belong to different streams altogether.
>>> Earlier (as part of RFC v1 doc) we did consider the proposal to process all
>> related chunks of data in single
>>> burst by passing them as ops array but later found that as not-so-useful for
>> PMD handling for various
>>> reasons. You may please refer to RFC v1 doc review comments for same.
>> [Fiona] Agree with Shally. In summary, as only one op can be processed at a
>> time, since each needs the
>> state of the previous, to allow more than 1 op to be in-flight at a time 
>> would
>> force PMDs to implement internal queueing and exception handling for
>> OUT_OF_SPACE conditions you mention.
[Ahmed] But we are putting the ops on qps which would make them
sequential. Handling OUT_OF_SPACE conditions would be a little bit more
complex but doable. The question is this mode of use useful for real
life applications or would we be just adding complexity? The technical
advantage of this is that processing of Stateful ops is interdependent
and PMDs can take advantage of caching and other optimizations to make
processing related ops much faster than switching on every op. PMDs have
maintain state of more than 32 KB for DEFLATE for every stream.
>> If the application has all the data, it can put it into chained mbufs in a 
>> single
>> op rather than
>> multiple ops, which avoids pushing all that complexity down to the PMDs.
[Ahmed] I think that your suggested scheme of putting all related mbufs
into one op may be the best solution without the extra complexity of
handling OUT_OF_SPACE cases, while still allowing the enqueuer extra
time If we have a way of marking mbufs as ready for consumption. The
enqueuer may not have all the data at hand but can enqueue the op with a
couple of empty mbus marked as not ready for consumption. The enqueuer
will then update the rest of the mbufs to ready for consumption once the
data is added. This introduces a race condition. A second flag for each
mbuf can be updated by the PMD to indicate that it processed it or not.
This way in cases where the PMD beat the application to the op, the
application will just update the op to point to the first unprocessed
mbuf and resend it to the PMD.
>>>>> Here an op *must* be attached to a stream and every subsequent
>>>> enqueue_burst() call should carry *same* stream. Since PMD maintain
>> ops
>>>> state in stream, thus it is mandatory for application to attach stream to
>> such
>>>> ops.
>> [Fiona] I think you're referring only to a single stream above, but as there
>> may be many different streams,
>> maybe add the following?
>> Above is simplified to show just a single stream. However there may be
>> many streams, and each
>> enqueue_burst() may contain ops from different streams, as long as there is
>> only one op in-flight from any
>> stream at a given time.
> [Shally] Ok get it. 
>>>>> D.2.2 Stateful and Out_of_Space
>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> If PMD support stateful and run into OUT_OF_SPACE situation, then it is
>>>> not an error condition for PMD. In such case, PMD return with status
>>>> RTE_COMP_OP_STATUS_OUT_OF_SPACE with consumed = number of
>> input
>>>> bytes read and produced = length of complete output buffer.
>> [Fiona] - produced would be <= output buffer len (typically =, but could be a
>> few bytes less)
>>>>> Application should enqueue op with source starting at consumed+1 and
>>>> output buffer with available space.
>>>> [Ahmed] Related to OUT_OF_SPACE. What status does the user recieve
>> in a
>>>> decompression case when the end block is encountered before the end
>> of
>>>> the input? Does the PMD continue decomp? Does it stop there and
>> return
>>>> the stop index?
>>> [Shally] Before I could answer this, please help me understand your use
>> case . When you say  "when the
>>> end block is encountered before the end of the input?" Do you mean -
>>> "Decompressor process a final block (i.e. has BFINAL=1 in its header) and
>> there's some footer data after
>>> that?" Or
>>> you mean "decompressor process one block and has more to process till its
>> final block?"
>>> What is "end block" and "end of input" reference here?
[Ahmed] I meant BFINAL=1 by end block. The end of input is the end of
the input length.
| input
|--data----data----data------data-------BFINAL-footer-unrelated data|
>>>>> D.2.3 Sliding Window Size
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>> Every PMD will reflect in its algorithm capability structure maximum
>> length
>>>> of Sliding Window in bytes which would indicate maximum history buffer
>>>> length used by algo.
>>>>> 2. Example API illustration
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> [Fiona] I think it would be useful to show an example of both a STATELESS
>> flow and a STATEFUL flow.
> [Shally] Ok. I can add simplified version to illustrate API usage in both 
> cases.
>>>>> Following is an illustration on API usage  (This is just one flow, other
>> variants
>>>> are also possible):
>>>>> 1. rte_comp_session *sess = rte_compressdev_session_create
>>>> (rte_mempool *pool);
>>>>> 2. rte_compressdev_session_init (int dev_id, rte_comp_session *sess,
>>>> rte_comp_xform *xform, rte_mempool *sess_pool);
>>>>> 3. rte_comp_op_pool_create(rte_mempool ..)
>>>>> 4. rte_comp_op_bulk_alloc (struct rte_mempool *mempool, struct
>>>> rte_comp_op **ops, uint16_t nb_ops);
>>>>> 5. for every rte_comp_op in ops[],
>>>>>     5.1 rte_comp_op_attach_session (rte_comp_op *op,
>> rte_comp_session
>>>> *sess);
>>>>>     5.2 op.op_type = RTE_COMP_OP_STATELESS
>>>>>     5.3 op.flush = RTE_FLUSH_FINAL
>>>>> 6. [Optional] for every rte_comp_op in ops[],
>>>>>     6.1 rte_comp_stream_create(int dev_id, rte_comp_session *sess,
>> void
>>>> **stream);
>>>>>     6.2 rte_comp_op_attach_stream(rte_comp_op *op,
>> rte_comp_session
>>>> *stream);
>>>> [Ahmed] What is the semantic effect of attaching a stream to every op?
>> will
>>>> this application benefit for this given that it is setup with op_type
>>> [Shally] By role, stream is data structure that hold all information that 
>>> PMD
>> need to maintain for an op
>>> processing and thus it's marked device specific. It is required for stateful
>> processing but optional for
>>> statelss as PMD doesn't need to maintain context once op is processed
>> unlike stateful.
>>> It may be of advantage to use stream for stateless to some of the PMD.
>> They can be designed to do one-
>>> time per op setup (such as mapping session params) during
>> stream_create() in control path than data
>>> path.
>> [Fiona] yes, we agreed that stream_create() should be called for every
>> session and if it
>> returns non-NULL the PMD needs it so op_attach_stream() must be called.
>> However I've just realised we don't have a STATEFUL/STATELESS param on
>> the xform, just on the op.
>> So we could either add stateful/stateless param to stream_create() ?
>> OR add stateful/stateless param to xform so it would be in session?
> [Shally] No it shouldn't be as part of session or xform as sessions aren't 
> stateless/stateful.
> So, we shouldn't alter the current definition of session or xforms.
> If we need to mention it, then it could be added as part of stream_create() 
> as it's device specific and depending upon op_type() device can then setup 
> stream resources.
>> However, Shally, can you reconsider if you really need it for STATELESS or if
>> the data you want to
>> store there could be stored in the session? Or if it's needed per-op does it
>> really need
>> to be visible on the API as a stream or could it be hidden within the PMD?
> [Shally] I would say it is not mandatory but a desirable feature that I am 
> suggesting. 
> I am only trying to enable optimization in data path which may be of help to 
> some PMD designs as they can use stream_create() to do setup that are 1-time 
> per op and regardless of op_type, such as I mentioned, setting up user 
> session params to device sess params.
> We can hide it inside PMD however there may be slight overhead in datapath 
> depending on PMD design.
> But I would say, it's not a blocker for us to freeze on current spec. We can 
> revisit this feature later because it will not alter base API functionality.
> Thanks
> Shally
>>>>> 7.for every rte_comp_op in ops[],
>>>>>      7.1 set up with src/dst buffer
>>>>> 8. enq = rte_compressdev_enqueue_burst (dev_id, qp_id, &ops,
>> nb_ops);
>>>>> 9. do while (dqu < enq) // Wait till all of enqueued are dequeued
>>>>>     9.1 dqu = rte_compressdev_dequeue_burst (dev_id, qp_id, &ops,
>> enq);
>>>> [Ahmed] I am assuming that waiting for all enqueued to be dequeued is
>> not
>>>> strictly necessary, but is just the chosen example in this case
>>> [Shally] Yes. By design, for burst_size>1 each op is independent of each
>> other. So app may proceed as soon
>>> as it dequeue any.
>>>>> 10. Repeat 7 for next batch of data
>>>>> 11. for every ops in ops[]
>>>>>       11.1 rte_comp_stream_free(op->stream);
>>>>> 11. rte_comp_session_clear (sess) ;
>>>>> 12. rte_comp_session_terminate(ret_comp_sess *session)
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Shally

Reply via email to