[lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler

Hi All, Below is the initial design draft for Flow aware scheduler. Pls review the document and provide your valuable feedback. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HDHHxSMtHNWl9_ sWIVoKRaB4zdsb4hT-PKK6sUB708s/edit?usp=sharing Regards, Bala

Re: [lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler enhancement for ODP

elds like GTP tunnelid? > > FF > > On 6 April 2018 at 17:35, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> On 6 April 2018 at 20:56, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks, Bala. I li

Re: [lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler enhancement for ODP

ased on a hash generated from set of fields or a "tag" like SPI index. Regards, Bala > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Based on the requirements from our customers, we have come acro

[lng-odp] Flow aware scheduler enhancement for ODP

Hi, Based on the requirements from our customers, we have come across certain limitations in the current scheduler design, 1) Creating a huge number of odp_queue_t is very expensive operation since each queue contains a context and having millions of queues creates memory constraints in the

Re: [lng-odp] odp_packet_data() considered harmful

This API is being supported in ODP for quite some time. The minimum header length in the pool is set by the applications and they are usually aware of the header length supported in the first segment. Hence applications calling this API should be aware that this will not contain the entire packet

Re: [lng-odp] RSS in ODP

assume either it should be done there, or the user is responsible for > retrieving and destroying those queues. > The queue created using this mechanism will have to be destroyed by the implementation. Application will not have to worry about these implementation created queues. These are BUG in

Re: [lng-odp] RSS in ODP

_hash_proto_t hash_proto; }; }; > > -- > Oriol Arcas > Software Engineer > Starflow Networks > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In addition configuring the h

Re: [lng-odp] RSS in ODP

Hi, In addition configuring the hashing on the pktio interface as Petri suggested, you can also configure hashing on CoS. By configuring hashing on CoS, you can effectively configure hashing for a particular flow. Regards, Bala On 4 January 2018 at 20:51, Oriol Arcas

Re: [lng-odp] ODP development process proposal

My two cents I personally prefer Proposal 1, since it provides a single branch (api-next) which gives me a snapshot of the future of master branch. In case of proposal 2, let's say there are two different branches/PR for API changes in pktio and queue we will not know how they will look together

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: classifier with pktio in ODP_PKTIN_MODE_QUEUE

lication will have to call odp_queue_deq(queue1) to receive this packet. Regards, Bala > > Liron > > -Original Message- > From: Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha...@linaro.org] > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 11:27 > To: Liron Himi <lir...@marvell.com> > C

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: classifier with pktio in ODP_PKTIN_MODE_QUEUE

ng event queues configured using odp_pktin_event_queue(). Packets delivered after classification can be received by application either using odp_queue_deq() or odp_schedule() function depending upon the dst_queue configured with CoS. Regards, Bala > > Liron > > -Original Message

Re: [lng-odp] classifier with pktio in ODP_PKTIN_MODE_QUEUE

Hi, Both these modes cannot co-exist. There is a parameter 'classifier_enable' and 'hash_enable' as part of odp_pktin_queue_param_t which is used to identify whether classifier or hashing is enabled for a particular pktio interface. Both classifier and hash configuration are orthogonal and only

Re: [lng-odp] [Bug 2903] validation: add test case for PMR LD_VNI

I was hoping my PR for RED will get in soon. I will work on this bug and get this in before TigerMoth. Regards, Bala On 9 November 2017 at 21:22, wrote: > https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2903 > > --- Comment #10 from Bill Fischofer

Re: [lng-odp] Latest odp_ipsec_sa_disable() discussion and proposed resolution

Hi, I was on vacation and went through this mail thread just now. I wasn't sure where to inject my comments hence I am providing them at the top for clarity. 1). I am not a huge fan of the idea of starting a timer to perform the SA delete since calculating this timer's timeout will be an issue

Re: [lng-odp] Let's remove odp_packet_unshared_len

Hi, I would propose to remove this odp_packet_unshared_length(), from an implementation point of view this API will require additional software overhead as this feature is not inherently supported in the HW and there are concerns when creating multiple references. If we do not foresee any serious

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: odp_pktin_queue_param_t - classifier_enable & num_queues

Yes. This is an implementation bug. Will fix the bug. Minor correction, when classifier_enabled is set the current design is to create all the queues in a single shot rather than as needed since it will create network jitter if queues are created at random. Regards, Bala On 3 October 2017 at

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: PKTIO and classification

h the documentation as is setting "classifier_enable" is a mandatory field. I will update the test cases accordingly. Regards, Bala > > > Liron > > > > *From:* Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha...@linaro.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 27

Re: [lng-odp] PKTIO and classification

On 26 July 2017 at 01:24, Liron Himi wrote: > Hi, > > I have a few questions/clarifications regarding classification in PKTIO: > > 1. As part of the 'odp_pktin_queue_param_t' application should set > 'classifier_enable' to '1' if classification support is wanted. Is

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXTv4 1/3] api: classification: add support for packet hashing in classification

On 25 July 2017 at 16:17, Nikhil Agarwal wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > Balasubramanian Manoharan > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:07 AM > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org > Subject: [lng-odp]

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXTv4 1/3] api: classification: add support for packet hashing in classification

Regards, Bala On 25 July 2017 at 06:51, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Balasubramanian Manoharan < > bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Enable packet hashing per CoS to be able to distribute incoming packets to >> multiple queues

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: ipsec: add warning status event

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 14 July 2017 at 18:13, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Add status ID for warning messages. Outbound inline soft lifetime > expiration is currently the only source of these events. API spec > keeps

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXTv3 1/3] api: classification: add support for packet hashing in classification

On 14 July 2017 at 19:18, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > > Balasubramanian Manoharan > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 12:12 PM > > To:

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v2 4/4] api: crypto: revert deprecation of crypto completion API

On 14 July 2017 at 04:33, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < > dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 13.07.2017 21:20, Bill Fischofer wrote: >> > On Thu

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v2 4/4] api: crypto: revert deprecation of crypto completion API

On 13 July 2017 at 16:25, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > > Github ODP bot > > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:00 PM > > To:

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v3 1/9] api: ipsec: add salt parameter

For the series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 12 July 2017 at 19:24, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Added a parameter for passing salt/nonce for algorithms that > need it. Currently, only AES GCM needs it with 4 bytes of > salt.

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v4 1/1] api: ipsec: add retain header capability

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 13 July 2017 at 15:13, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > Reviewed-by: Petri Savolainen > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v8 3/10] api: crypto: drop async mode support

On 11 July 2017 at 18:24, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > > Github ODP bot > > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 5:00 PM > > To:

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v3] api: pool: additional packet length configuration

Regards, Bala On 15 June 2017 at 19:51, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Added packet pool parameters for more fine grained pool > configuration. The basic usage of the parameters is not changed, > except that implementation may now round up 'num' by default. > Application

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v3 0/3] IPSEC packet event

For the series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 16 June 2017 at 16:19, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Applies on top of: "[API-NEXT PATCH v2 0/2] IPsec API update" > > Input and output of IPSEC operations are packets. Parameter and >

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXT] api: schedule: add ordered context unlock-lock

On 16 June 2017 at 21:14, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > Can you please explain the use case for this API? > > We already have odp_schedule_order_unlock and odp_schedule_order_lock. > These APIs can be used to do the same operation. > Yes. This API can be

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXT] api: schedule: add ordered context unlock-lock

Regards, Bala On 16 June 2017 at 19:42, Bill Fischofer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Balasubramanian Manoharan > wrote: > > Adds api to release an existing ordered lock and acquire a new lock. > > > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [lng-odp] Mem pool creation in Cavium/NXP implementations

Regards, Bala On 15 June 2017 at 23:20, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 15 June 2017 at 10:58, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 15 June 2017 at 20:00, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> > wrote:

Re: [lng-odp] Mem pool creation in Cavium/NXP implementations

his answer your question? Regards, Bala > > FF > > On 15 June 2017 at 15:42, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Add on. It is also possible that the pool might not be linked to any pktio >> eg buffer pools, hence in implementation we can not

Re: [lng-odp] Mem pool creation in Cavium/NXP implementations

since odp_pool_create() is the only > opportunity the implementation has to fail the pool creation in a > defined manner. > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Same here. Pool is created during odp_pool_create API. >

Re: [lng-odp] Mem pool creation in Cavium/NXP implementations

Same here. Pool is created during odp_pool_create API. Regards, Bala On 15 June 2017 at 12:36, Nikhil Agarwal wrote: > Pool is created at odp_pool_create only. You can allocate packets form it > even before pktio_open. > > Regards > Nikhil > > -Original

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] api: classification: add random early discard

On 13 June 2017 at 04:10, Bill Fischofer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Balasubramanian Manoharan > wrote: > > Add random early discard configuration to class-of-service > > > > Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 0/2] IPsec API update

For the series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] api: pool: add threshold limit to the pool

Regards, Bala On 5 June 2017 at 21:52, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Regards, >> Bala >> >> >> On 5 June 2017 at 18:24, Bill Fischofer <

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC] api: pool: add threshold limit to the pool

Regards, Bala On 5 June 2017 at 18:02, Stanislaw Kardach wrote: > > > Best Regards, > Stanislaw Kardach > > On 06/05/2017 02:27 PM, Balasubramanian Manoharan wrote: >> Adds threshold limit of the pool to the pool parameters. >> This threshold limit is a percentage of total

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC API-NEXT PATCH] api: init: add unused feature hints to init struct

On 31 May 2017 at 14:03, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/odp/api/spec/init.h b/include/odp/api/spec/init.h > > I think it's better to have a new file for this (feature.h). It may be needed > also in other parts (of implementation)

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v5 1/1] api: crypto: add odp_crypto_session_create2 returning odp_crypto_session_t

On 30 May 2017 at 21:24, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 May 2017 at 18:30, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 30 May 2017 at 20:46, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> w

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v5 1/1] api: crypto: add odp_crypto_session_create2 returning odp_crypto_session_t

On 30 May 2017 at 20:46, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 May 2017 at 18:06, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 30 May 2017 at 20:30, Github ODP bot <odp...@yandex.ru> wrote: >>> From: Dmitry E

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v1 1/1] api: ipsec: add AH capability

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 10 May 2017 at 12:00, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > > RFC4301 marks AH support as MAY instead of MUST. Some platforms might > skip implementing

Re: [lng-odp] odp_packet_free_multi with invalid packets

On 10 May 2017 at 11:00, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > On 10.05.2017 20:57, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >> On 05/10/2017 08:14 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: >>> On 10.05.2017 20:13, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > -Original

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v2 3/5] api: ipsec: add soft limit expiration event

ated from the same packet pool and if you send them to a specific control core/queue then it would cause a bottleneck. IMO it is better to have them as part of the packet result. Regards, Bala > > On 9 May 2017 at 21:37, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH API-NEXT v2 3/5] api: ipsec: add soft limit expiration event

On 9 May 2017 at 00:04, Bogdan Pricope wrote: > Hi, > > Can we have this event for all cases: sync/async/inline, > inbound/outbound, soft/hard limits? Lifetime expiration is destined to > control part of the application... we should be able to process it on > a

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 3/3] linux-generic: classification: implement packet hashing in classifier

Regards, Bala On 3 May 2017 at 18:15, Peltonen, Janne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi, > >> @@ -846,11 +897,91 @@ int cls_classify_packet(pktio_entry_t *entry, const >> uint8_t *base, >> >> *pool = cos->s.pool; >> pkt_hdr->p.input_flags.dst_queue = 1; >> -

Re: [lng-odp] Traffic Manager no applying policies?

log due to the speed of transmission. Regards, Bala > > -- > Oriol Arcas > Software Engineer > Starflow Networks > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> Can you please share the code as to how are you enq

Re: [lng-odp] Traffic Manager no applying policies?

Can you please share the code as to how are you enqueing packets to odp_tm_queue() are you creating packets of same size? I would like to know how these packets are enqueued to these 3 queues? Regards, Bala On 2 May 2017 at 18:50, Oriol Arcas wrote: > Bill, Barry,

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec SA disabling

On 28 April 2017 at 18:32, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 28.04.2017 15:32, Bala Manoharan wrote: >> On 28 April 2017 at 15:41, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 28.04.2017 12:2

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec SA disabling

On 28 April 2017 at 15:41, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > On 28.04.2017 12:27, Peltonen, Janne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Dmitry >>> Eremin- >>>

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v4] linux-generic: crypto: properly handle errors in packet copy

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan > On 25-Apr-2017, at 4:56 AM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < > dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Add proper handling for errors

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v3] linux-generic: crypto: properly handle errors in packet copy

Regards, Bala On 22 April 2017 at 22:15, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > Add proper handling for errors returned by odp_packet_copy_from_pkt(). > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > --- >

Re: [lng-odp] shmem pool APIs

On 21 April 2017 at 02:05, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > On 20 April 2017 at 13:54, Bill Fischofer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>I

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/4] api: pool: add maximum packet counts to pool info

Regards, Bala On 12 April 2017 at 18:28, Matias Elo wrote: > Add fields to odp_pool_info_t for maximum number of packets of any length, > maximum number of minimum length packets, and maximum number of maximum > length packets. > > odp_pool_param_t documentation is updated

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT v3] api: ipsec: factor out definitions for feature support levels

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 15 April 2017 at 07:18, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > Instead of having magic 0-1-2 numbers, let's have the special enum for > feature support levels (unsupported/supported/preferred). >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT v2] api: feature: factor out definitions for feature support levels

> On 14-Apr-2017, at 11:28 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > wrote: >> Instead of having magic 0-1-2 numbers, let's have the special enum for >> feature support levels

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT] api: ipsec: factor out definitions for feature support levels

Regards, Bala On 14 April 2017 at 16:52, Bill Fischofer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > wrote: >> Instead of having magic 0-1-2 numbers, let's have the special enum for >> feature support levels

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4 1/2] api: queue: added queue size param

For the series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan > On 13-Apr-2017, at 9:13 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > wrote: > > For this series: Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > > >> On 13 April 2017 at

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v3 1/2] api: queue: added queue size param

Regards, Bala On 3 April 2017 at 15:41, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Added capability information about maximum number of queues > and queue sizes. Both are defined per queue type, since > plain and scheduled queues may have different implementations > (e.g. one uses

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/2] add queue size param and related capability

Regards, Bala On 12 April 2017 at 10:05, Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 11 April 2017 at 05:51, Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 10 April 2017 at 21:47, Honnappa Nagarahalli >> <honnappa.nagaraha...@

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 1/2] add queue size param and related capability

On 10 April 2017 at 21:47, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > Hi Bala, > Continuing the discussion from the call, as I mentioned in the > call today, the queues need to hold all kinds of events and not just > packets. The events need not be defined by ODP (like

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXT 1/1] api: classification: packet hashing per class of service

Hi Bill, I will post a patch implementing this proposal next week. Regards, Bala On 6 April 2017 at 18:07, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > Bala, any idea when this can advance from the RFC stage to a real patch? > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM,

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC/API-NEXT 1/1] api: classification: packet hashing per class of service

Regards, Bala On 6 April 2017 at 00:53, Brian Brooks wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Balasubramanian Manoharan > wrote: >> Adds support to spread packet from a single CoS to multiple queues by >> configuring hashing at CoS level. >>

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4 1/3] api: ipsec: extend lookaside API

For this series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 30 March 2017 at 15:59, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Added configuration option for inbound SPI range (for > lookups). Removed unique SPI requirement and added config > option for

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: packet: add per packet checksum control

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 28 March 2017 at 16:37, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Checksum insertion has pktio interface level configuration > options. Per packet override is needed for example when > L4 checksumming is enabled

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 2/3] api: ipsec: add inline IPSEC support

ctly then we could add a boolean "enable_lookup" per SA which when disabled will remove the SA from any lookup and we can configure the lookup mode as a global configuration. Regards, Bala > > Janne > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: lng-odp [

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 2/3] api: ipsec: add inline IPSEC support

Regards, Bala On 23 March 2017 at 17:40, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> > >> > /** >> > @@ -381,11 +547,29 @@ typedef enum odp_ipsec_lookup_mode_t { >> > ODP_IPSEC_LOOKUP_DISABLED = 0, >> > >> > /** Inbound SA lookup is

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 2/3] api: ipsec: add inline IPSEC support

Regards, Bala On 23 March 2017 at 17:32, Nikhil Agarwal wrote: > Few initial comments: > > - For Mixing inline and async processing must maintain same SA context in HW > and implementation. In that case, we should shift to async SA creation so > that while creating an

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 2/3] api: ipsec: add inline IPSEC support

Regards, Bala On 21 March 2017 at 19:47, Petri Savolainen wrote: > > Added support for inline IPSEC processing on packet input and > output. Inline mode IPSEC and traffic manager cannot be enabled > (currently) on the same pktio interface. > > Signed-off-by: Petri

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2 1/3] api: ipsec: extend lookaside API

Regards, Bala On 21 March 2017 at 19:47, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Added configuration option for inbound SPI range and default > queue. Added SA disable function and status event for the > response from it. The same event may be used for e.g. IPSEC > statistics,

Re: [lng-odp] [RFC, API-NEXT v1 1/1] comp:compression interface

Hi, This proposal supports both sync and async compression offload in a single API following the crypto model, IMO We can separate SYNC and ASYNC compression offload as two different APIs and only add ASYNC compression offload in the first version and if required we can add SYNC compression mode

Re: [lng-odp] Regarding Chained Buffers and Crypto

a "Segmented" packets? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of >> Bala Manoharan >> Sent: 16 March 2017 14:01 >> To: Nanda Gopal <nandana...@gmail.com> >> Cc: lng-odp-

Re: [lng-odp] Regarding Chained Buffers and Crypto

ted on the out_pkt provided. Regards, Bala > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 at 14:01 Bala Manoharan <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> >> On 15 March 2017 at 18:42, Nanda Gopal <nandana...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> *Hi,* >> >> >> >&

Re: [lng-odp] Regarding Chained Buffers and Crypto

On 15 March 2017 at 18:42, Nanda Gopal wrote: > *Hi,* > > > > *When we pass, odp_crypto_op_params_tparams to odp_crypto_operation > (), as per the documentation, if we set params-> out_pkt to INVALID, a new > pkt would be created from the original pkt pool, data

Re: [lng-odp] ABI and deprecated API flag

On 15 March 2017 at 09:35, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 17:18, Bill Fischofer > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > > wrote: > >> > >> On 14

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: packet: do not require a max packet length

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan > > On 13-Mar-2017, at 7:32 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > Address bug https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2908 by checking > the pool capability max packet length

[lng-odp] IPsec inline offload proposal

Hi, Pls find the architecture document for IPsec inline offload proposal. https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1vwOGNHJcRSiQaHgyRrKhlGxgEw9156Dnna8AmXA7G5k/edit?usp=sharing Regards, Bala

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v2 1/2] linux-gen: ipc: use hdr to handle conversion function

For the series: Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 1 March 2017 at 14:57, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Use conversion function instead of casting. > > Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen > --- >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/2] validation: packet: increase test pool size

Regards, Bala On 24 February 2017 at 21:43, Matias Elo wrote: > Previously packet_test_concatsplit() could fail on some pool > implementations as the pool ran out of buffers. Increase default pools size > and use capability to make sure the value is valid. > >

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: ODP crypto support with HW offload

Do we want new multi crypto API to use the same approach as single? > > Thanks > Dima > > > -Original Message- > From: Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha...@linaro.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Dmitri Epshtein > Cc: lng-odp-forward; Nir E

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: ODP crypto support with HW offload

On 16 February 2017 at 13:31, Dmitri Epshtein wrote: > Hello, > > As part of action items from previous meeting I am going to suggest crypto > APIs with burst support. > > But before I would like to confirm my understanding of existing > odp_crypto_operation() API definition >

Re: [lng-odp] Packet references API

On 9 February 2017 at 21:02, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi, > > I still think that packet ref API should be defined so that an implementation > may fall back to doing packet copy instead of reference to shared data (if it > simply cannot

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: ODP crypto support with HW offload

Hi Dmitri, Pls see inline.. Regards, Bala On 7 February 2017 at 16:46, Dmitri Epshtein <d...@marvell.com> wrote: > Hi Bala, > > See inline > > Thanks > Dima > > -Original Message- > From: Bala Manoharan [mailto:bala.manoha...@linaro.org] > Sent:

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: ODP crypto support with HW offload

Regards, Bala On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Dmitri Epshtein wrote: > Hi, > > There are two issues in current odp_crypto APIs (file > $ODP_DIR/include/odp/api/spec/crypto.h) > > 1. No support batch/burst for crypto operations > 2. No support crypto results polling by

Re: [lng-odp] pktio: enable_loop

Regards, Bala On 25 January 2017 at 13:07, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <nmo...@kalray.eu> wrote: > > Le 01/24/2017 à 06:11 PM, Bala Manoharan a écrit : >> On 24 January 2017 at 22:25, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin >> <nmo...@kalray.eu> wrote: >>> Just a qui

Re: [lng-odp] pktio: enable_loop

On 24 January 2017 at 22:25, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: > Just a quick question about the API. > > Bala introduced a patch to check/enable loopback mode on interface. > But the patch adds an "enable_loop" in odp_pktio_config_t and a > "loop_supported" in

Re: [lng-odp] ODP installation issues on Cavium ThunderX

Hi, ODP Cavium implementation has not been publicly released. Regards, Bala On 19 January 2017 at 22:23, Mike Holmes wrote: > > > On 19 January 2017 at 11:43, Gyanesh Patra > wrote: > >> There is no link available for the "Cavium

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] example: introducing multi-threaded traffic management case

There is a lot of code duplication in this example rom example/traffic_mgmt/odp_traffic_mgmt.c file. Maybe the common code should be moved or we should reduce the scope of this example. Regards, Bala On 19 December 2016 at 11:31, wrote: > From: Xuelin Shi

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH] api: ipsec: packet transformation follows RFCs

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 13 January 2017 at 11:58, Nikhil Agarwal wrote: > Reviewed-by: Nikhil Agarwal > > -Original Message- > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] test: perf: add assert since src_idx cannot be negative

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 22 December 2016 at 18:13, Bill Fischofer wrote: > Address Bug https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2790 by adding an > assert. odp_packet_input_index() only returns a negative value if the >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv6 1/5] api: packet: add support for packet references

Except for the Minor documentation comment below Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 5 January 2017 at 20:25, Bill Fischofer wrote: > Introduce three new APIs that support efficient sharing of portions of > packets. > >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXTv2 1/1] api: pktio: adds further definition for classification configuration

This patch got lost somehow. Pls review the same. Regards, Bala On 4 November 2016 at 23:04, Balasubramanian Manoharan wrote: > Updates classification configuration documentation. > > Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan > --- > v2:

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 1/7] api: packet: src and dst packet must not be the same

Reviewed-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan On 22 December 2016 at 20:03, Petri Savolainen wrote: > Concat and copy_from_pkt operations must be called with src and > dst packet handles which refer to the same packet. > > Signed-off-by: Petri

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2 1/5] api: packet: add support for packet references

On 21 December 2016 at 19:45, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Regards, >> Bala >> >> >> On 20 December 2016 at 22:35, Bill Fischofer <bill.

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2, 1/1] validation: pktio: fix invalid mac addr

Regards, Bala On 22 December 2016 at 19:22, Josep Puigdemont <josep.puigdem...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:22:50PM +0530, Bala Manoharan wrote: >> Regards, >> Bala >> >> >> On 8 December 2016 at 21:03, Josep Puigdemont >> <jose

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2, 1/1] validation: pktio: fix invalid mac addr

Regards, Bala On 8 December 2016 at 21:03, Josep Puigdemont <josep.puigdem...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:58:39PM +0530, Bala Manoharan wrote: >> Fixes https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2496 >> >> Signed-off-by: Balasubramanian Manoharan

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2 1/5] api: packet: add support for packet references

Regards, Bala On 20 December 2016 at 22:35, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 20 December 2016 at 18:26, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2 1/5] api: packet: add support for packet references

On 20 December 2016 at 18:26, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Regards, >> Bala >> >> >> On 19 December 2016 at 20:23, Bill Fischofer <bill.

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv2 1/5] api: packet: add support for packet references

Regards, Bala On 19 December 2016 at 20:23, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Bala Manoharan > <bala.manoha...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Comments inline >> >> >> On 15 November 2016 at 20:14, Bill Fisch

  1   2   3   4   5   >