[dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization

[Nélio Laranjeiro]

Hi Olivier, Jan,

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:39 +0100, Jan Blunck <jblunck at infradead.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Olivier Matz
> > <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:41:27 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
> > > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:  
> > >> >
> > >> > The main changes are:
> > >> > - reorder structure to increase vector performance on some non-ia
> > >> >   platforms.
> > >> > - add a 64bits timestamp field in the 1st cache line  
> > >>
> > >> Wonder why it deserves to be in first cache line?
> > >> How it differs from seqn below (pure SW stuff right now).  
> > >
> > > In case the timestamp is set from a NIC value, it is set in the Rx
> > > path. So that's why I think it deserve to be located in the 1st
> > > cache line.
> > >
> > > As you said, the seqn is a pure sw stuff right: it is set in a lib,
> > > not in a PMD rx path.
> > >  
> > 
> > If we talk about setting the timestamp value in the RX path this
> > implicitly means software timestamps. Hardware timestamping usually
> > works by letting the hardware inject sync events for coarse time
> > tracking and additionally injecting fine granular per-packet ticks at
> > a specific offset in the packet. Out of performance reasons I don't
> > think it makes sense to extract this during the burst and write it
> > into the mbuf again.
> 
> From what I've understand, at least it does not work like this for
> mellanox NICs: timestamp is a metadata attached to a rx packet. But
> maybe they (and other NIC vendors interrested in the feature) can
> confirm or not.

Olivier is right, this timestamp information is returned by the hardware
as the other fields describing the Rx packet (length, RSS hash, checksum
...).  The PMD only copy it into the Mbuf.

> > The problem with timestamps is to get the abstraction right wrt the
> > correction factors and the size of the tick vs. the timestamp in the
> > events injected. From my perspective it would be better to extract the
> > handling of timestamp data into a library with PMD specific
> > implementation of the conversions. That way the normalized timestamp
> > values can get extracted if they are present. The mbuf itself would
> > only indicate the presence of timestamp metadata in that case.
> 
> I agree however that we need to properly define the meaning of this
> field. My idea is:
> 
> - the timestamp is in nanosecond
> - the reference is always the same for a given path: if the timestamp is
>   set in a PMD, all the packets for this PMD will have the same
>   reference, but for 2 different PMDs (or a sw lib), the reference
>   would not be the same.
> 
> I think it's enough for many use cases.
> We can later add helpers to compare timestamps with different
> references.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

Regards,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND