-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Scheurich <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 2:16 AM
To: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Darrell Ball <[email protected]>
Cc: "Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] DPDK Merge Repo
> > and a series we would like to get into 2.8
> >
> > netdev-dpdk: Use intermediate queue during packet transmission. Bhanu
Jun 29/V3
> > netdev: Add netdev_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add netdev_dpdk_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add netdev_dpdk_vhost_txq_flush function.
> > netdev-dpdk: Add intermediate queue support.
> > netdev-dpdk: Enable intermediate queue for vHost User port.
> > dpif-netdev: Flush the packets in intermediate queue.
>
> I think that we still not reached agreement about the level of
implementation
> (netdev-dpdk or dpif-netdev). Just few people participate in discussion
which
> is not very productive. I suggest not to target output batching for 2.8
release
> because of this and also lack of testing and review.
> As I understand, we have only 3 days merge window for the new features
> and I expect that we can't finish discussion, review and testing in time.
Ericsson is very much interested in time-based Tx batching, especially for
vhostuser ports as a means to reduce the virtio interrupts for non-PMD guests.
We do not see significant value of Tx batching within an Rx batch in realistic
use cases as Rx batches are fairly small until we reach PMD saturation.
[Darrell]
I agree; we must batch over multiple RX batches; this is a requirement that
everyone has agreed on
We would like to take the time to evaluate and benchmark the two approaches
(Bhanu's above patches plus his RFC patch for time-based batching in
dpif-netdev and netdev-dpdk and Ilya's simpler patch set limited to
dpif-netdev). We will provide feedback on the ML next week.
In this situation we do not recommend merging the above patches in a rush
for OVS 2.8.
[Darrell]
OVS 2.8 is already closed for new features. I thought this was made clear in
the DPDK meeting
> In addition I have a few general thoughts about merging via pull requests:
>
> 2. I'm a fan of plain git history. Could we use 'Rebase and merge' policy
> without merge commits ?
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_blog_2243-2Drebase-2Dand-2Dmerge-2Dpull-2Drequests&d=DwIFAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=dGZmbKhBG9tJHY4odedsGA&m=zCZmzJuQ5wNsqAVO6h_HUe5zNRKoNbHaIsos3cB3pog&s=dknsA48nCxn81A_0J1Ieudf0SElHAka_mQZbu9elIZU&e=
+1 for maintaining a plain git history w/o merge commits
BR, Jan
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
