[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range

[Richardson, Bruce]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:12 PM
> To: Yang, Zhiyong <zhiyong.yang at intel.com>
> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; thomas at monjalon.net; Wiles,
> Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>; stephen at networkplumber.org; Nelio
> Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range
> 
> Hi Zhiyong,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:47:10AM +0000, Yang, Zhiyong wrote:
> > Hi,  Ferruh, Bruce:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yigit, Ferruh
> > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 5:30 PM
> > > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Yang, Zhiyong
> > > <zhiyong.yang at intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; thomas at monjalon.net; Wiles, Keith
> > > <keith.wiles at intel.com>; stephen at networkplumber.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id
> > > range
> > >
> > > On 9/4/2017 10:06 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:57:31PM +0800, Zhiyong Yang wrote:
> > > >> Extend port_id definition from uint8_t to uint16_t in lib and
> > > >> drivers data structures, specifically rte_eth_dev_data.  Modify
> > > >> the APIs, drivers and app using port_id at the same time except
> > > >> some drivers such as MLX4 and MLX5 due to fail to compile them in
> my server.
> > > >>
> > > > I think you can change those drivers too - it's not hard to set up
> > > > compilation for MLX drivers (instruction in DPDK docs on the
> > > > website), and even if you can't compile test them, e.g. dpaa2
> > > > drivers, or other SoC ones, others can do so on your behalf. If
> > > > you are going to change drivers, I think you should change all of
> them across the board.
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > OK. I will change them.
> 
> I haven't applied the series yet but I think mlx4 doesn't need any
> modification to support the new width. mlx5, on the other hand, at least
> uses the following field in its data path:
> 
>  unsigned int port_id:8;
> 
> One related question, why not define a new type (like testpmd's portid_t)
> part of rte_ethdev.h? (rte_portid_t?)
> 
> I think uint16_t may not last long with virtual ports and all, and when it
> becomes necessary, the switch to uint32_t will be painful. A typedef
> should also ease the conversion of user applications.
> 
> If you choose to use a typedef, I suggest to do so in a separate patch
> first (uint8_t => rte_portid_t) before upgrading rte_portid_t to 16 bits
> in the subsequent patch. It means the first patch is large but trivial
> while the second one is shorter but deals with the complex changes such as
> the one needed for mlx5.
> 
> Thanks.

The downside of hiding the size is that it becomes harder to reason about the layout of key structures like mbuf. Probably not a huge issue, though. A better question would be whether we would see the port id ever needing to increase in size to 32-bits? Even with virtual ports, I find it hard to see us needing more 64k ports in a single application.

Regards,
/Bruce