The *expression* may be linear, but that doesn't imply that is how any given implementation needs to realize the expression. Since PMRs are reasonably static, I'd expect them to be "compiled" into whatever native classification capabilities are present in the platform. Real classification is typically done in parallel by the HW as the packet is coming "off the wire". This is necessary because one of the outputs of classification is pool selection, so all of this happens while the packet is in the HW's receive FIFO before the DMA engines are told where to store it.
If you have an alternative API proposal let's discuss that. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Taras Kondratiuk < [email protected]> wrote: > On 04/06/2015 02:04 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > >> Isn't that just another term in the PMR? If I have a flow with four >> different sized packets that I want to put in different pools then I >> simply have a PMR to identify the flow as input to other PMRs that then >> segregate by pkt_len into four final CoSes which map the flow to the >> same queue but different pools. >> > > Currently yes, it is a term in PMR and you can model it in that way. > But in fact you are linearizing two orthogonal parameters. As a result > you will have overcomplicated model with not necessary redundancy. > 5 CoS with the same destination queue but different pools. Plus 4 > additional PRMs. Instead of just one CoS with 4 pools and one PMR. > > Another issue with a current approach: it can't be implemented on KS2. >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
