[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Yet another option for DPDK options
Wiles, Keith
keith.wiles at intel.com
Fri Jun 3 20:29:13 CEST 2016
On 6/3/16, 12:44 PM, "Neil Horman" <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:04:14PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> Sorry, I deleted all of the text as it was getting a bit long.
>>
>> Here are my thoughts as of now, which is a combination of many suggestions I read from everyone’s emails. I hope this is not too hard to understand.
>>
>> - Break out the current command line options out of the DPDK common code and move into a new lib.
>> - At this point I was thinking of keeping the rte_eal_init(args, argv) API and just have it pass the args/argv to the new lib to create the data storage.
>> - Maybe move the rte_eal_init() API to the new lib or keep it in the common eal code. Do not want to go hog wild.
>> - The rte_eal_init(args, argv) would then call to the new API rte_eal_initialize(void), which in turn queries the data storage. (still thinking here)
>These three items seem to be the exact opposite of my suggestion. The point of
>this change was to segregate the parsing of configuration away from the
>initalization dpdk using that configurtion. By keeping rte_eal_init in such a
>way that the command line is directly passed into it, you've not changed that
>implicit binding to command line options.
Neil,
You maybe reading the above wrong or I wrote it wrong, which is a high possibility. I want to move the command line parsing out of DPDK an into a library, but I still believe I need to provide some backward compatibility for ABI and to reduce the learning curve. The current applications can still call the rte_eal_init(), which then calls the new lib parser for dpdk command line options and then calls rte_eal_initialize() or move to the new API rte_eal_initialize() preceded by a new library call to parse the old command line args. At some point we can deprecate the rte_eal_init() if we think it is reasonable.
>
>I can understand if you want to keep rte_eal_init as is for ABI purposes, but
>then you should create an rte_eal_init2(foo), where foo is some handle to in
>memory parsed configuration, so that applications can preform that separation.
I think you describe what I had planned here. The rte_eal_initialize() routine is the new rte_eal_init2() API and the rte_eal_init() was only for backward compatibility was my thinking. I figured the argument to rte_eal_initialize() would be something to be decided, but it will mostly likely be some type of pointer to the storage.
I hope that clears that up, but let me know.
++Keith
>
>Neil
>
>> - The example apps args needs to be passed to the examples as is for now, then we can convert them one at a time if needed.
>>
>> - I would like to keep the storage of the data separate from the file parser as they can use the ‘set’ routines to build the data storage up.
>> - Keeping them split allows for new parsers to be created, while keeping the data storage from changing.
>> - The rte_cfg code could be modified to use the new configuration if someone wants to take on that task ☺
>>
>> - Next is the data storage and how we can access the data in a clean simple way.
>> - I want to have some simple level of hierarchy in the data.
>> - Having a string containing at least two levels “primary:secondary”.
>> - Primary string is something like “EAL” or “Pktgen” or “testpmd” to divide the data storage into logical major groups.
>> - The primary allows us to have groups and then we can have common secondary strings in different groups if needed.
>> - Secondary string can be whatever the developer of that group would like e.g. simple “EAL:foobar”, two levels “testpmd:foo.bar”
>>
>> - The secondary string is treated as a single string if it has a hierarchy or not, but referencing a single value in the data storage.
>> - Key value pairs (KVP) or a hashmap data store.
>> - The key here is the whole string “EAL:foobar” not just “foobar” secondary string.
>> - If we want to have the two split I am ok with that as well meaning the API would be:
>> rte_map_get(mapObj, “EAL”, “foo.bar”);
>> rte_map_set(mapObj, “EAL”, “foo.bar”, value);
>> - Have the primary as a different section in the data store, would allow for dumping that section maybe easier, not sure.
>> - I am leaning toward
>> - Not going to try splitting up the string or parse it as it is up to the developer to make it unique in the data store.
>> - Use a code design to make the strings simple to use without having typos be a problem.
>> - Not sure what the design is yet, but I do not want to have to concat two string or split strings in the code.
>>
>> This is as far as I have gotten and got tired of typing ☺
>>
>> I hope this will satisfy most everyone’s needs for now.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the dev
mailing list