From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
harry.van.haaren@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
gage.eads@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:35:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1883454.103LptOkIX@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161124015912.GA13508@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
2016-11-24 07:29, Jerin Jacob:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-11-18 11:14, Jerin Jacob:
> > > +Eventdev API - EXPERIMENTAL
> > > +M: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > +F: lib/librte_eventdev/
> >
> > OK to mark it experimental.
> > What is the plan to remove the experimental word?
>
> IMO, EXPERIMENTAL status can be changed when
> - At least two event drivers available(Intel and Cavium are working on
> SW and HW event drivers)
> - Functional test applications are fine with at least two drivers
> - Portable example application to showcase the features of the library
> - eventdev integration with another dpdk subsystem such as ethdev
>
> Thoughts?. I am not sure the criteria used in cryptodev case.
Sounds good.
We will be more confident when drivers and tests will be implemented.
I think the roadmap for the SW driver targets the release 17.05.
Do you still plan 17.02 for this API and the Cavium driver?
> > > +#define EVENTDEV_NAME_SKELETON_PMD event_skeleton
> > > +/**< Skeleton event device PMD name */
> >
> > I do not understand this #define.
>
> Applications can explicitly request the a specific driver though driver
> name. This will go as argument to rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(const char *name).
> The reason for keeping this #define in rte_eventdev.h is that,
> application needs to include only rte_eventdev.h not rte_eventdev_pmd.h.
So each driver must register its name in the API?
Is it really needed?
> > > +struct rte_event_dev_config {
> > > + uint32_t dequeue_wait_ns;
> > > + /**< rte_event_dequeue() wait for *dequeue_wait_ns* ns on this device.
> >
> > Please explain exactly when the wait occurs and why.
>
> Here is the explanation from rte_event_dequeue() API definition,
> -
> @param wait
> 0 - no-wait, returns immediately if there is no event.
> >0 - wait for the event, if the device is configured with
> RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_PER_DEQUEUE_WAIT then this function will wait until
> the event available or *wait* time.
> if the device is not configured with RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_PER_DEQUEUE_WAIT
> then this function will wait until the event available or *dequeue_wait_ns*
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ns which was previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure()
> -
> This is provides the application to have control over, how long the
> implementation should wait if event is not available.
>
> Let me know what exact changes are required if details are not enough in
> rte_event_dequeue() API definition.
Maybe that timeout would be a better name.
It waits only if there is nothing in the queue.
It can be interesting to highlight in this comment that this parameter
makes the dequeue function a blocking call.
> > > +/** Event port configuration structure */
> > > +struct rte_event_port_conf {
> > > + int32_t new_event_threshold;
> > > + /**< A backpressure threshold for new event enqueues on this port.
> > > + * Use for *closed system* event dev where event capacity is limited,
> > > + * and cannot exceed the capacity of the event dev.
> > > + * Configuring ports with different thresholds can make higher priority
> > > + * traffic less likely to be backpressured.
> > > + * For example, a port used to inject NIC Rx packets into the event dev
> > > + * can have a lower threshold so as not to overwhelm the device,
> > > + * while ports used for worker pools can have a higher threshold.
> > > + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_events_limit*
> > > + * which previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure()
> > > + */
> > > + uint8_t dequeue_depth;
> > > + /**< Configure number of bulk dequeues for this event port.
> > > + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_event_port_dequeue_depth*
> > > + * which previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure()
> > > + */
> > > + uint8_t enqueue_depth;
> > > + /**< Configure number of bulk enqueues for this event port.
> > > + * This value cannot exceed the *nb_event_port_enqueue_depth*
> > > + * which previously supplied to rte_event_dev_configure()
> > > + */
> > > +};
> >
> > The depth configuration is not clear to me.
>
> Basically the maximum number of events can be enqueued/dequeued at time
> from a given event port. depth of one == non burst mode.
OK so depth is the queue size. Please could you reword?
> > > +/* Event types to classify the event source */
> >
> > Why this classification is needed?
>
> This for application pipeling and the cases like, if application wants to know which
> subsystem generated the event.
>
> example packet forwarding loop on the worker cores:
> while(1) {
> ev = dequeue()
> // event from ethdev subsystem
> if (ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_ETHDEV) {
> - swap the mac address
> - push to atomic queue for ingress flow order maintenance
> by CORE
> /* events from core */
> } else if (ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CORE) {
>
> }
> enqueue(ev);
> }
I don't know why but I feel this classification is weak.
You need to track the source of the event. Does it make sense to go beyond
and identify the source device?
> > > +#define RTE_EVENT_TYPE_ETHDEV 0x0
> > > +/**< The event generated from ethdev subsystem */
> > > +#define RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CRYPTODEV 0x1
> > > +/**< The event generated from crypodev subsystem */
> > > +#define RTE_EVENT_TYPE_TIMERDEV 0x2
> > > +/**< The event generated from timerdev subsystem */
> > > +#define RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CORE 0x3
> > > +/**< The event generated from core.
> >
> > What is core?
>
> The event are generated by lcore for pipeling. Any suggestion for
> better name? lcore?
What about CPU or SW?
> > > + /**< Opaque event pointer */
> > > + struct rte_mbuf *mbuf;
> > > + /**< mbuf pointer if dequeued event is associated with mbuf */
> >
> > How do we know that an event is associated with mbuf?
>
> By looking at the event source/type RTE_EVENT_TYPE_*
>
> > Does it mean that such events are always converted into mbuf even if the
> > application does not need it?
>
> Hardware has dependency on getting physical address of the event, so any
> struct that has "phys_addr_t buf_physaddr" works.
I do not understand.
I tought that decoding the event would be the responsibility of the app
by calling a function like
rte_eventdev_convert_to_mbuf(struct rte_event *, struct rte_mbuf *).
> > > +struct rte_eventdev_driver;
> > > +struct rte_eventdev_ops;
> >
> > I think it is better to split API and driver interface in two files.
> > (we should do this split in ethdev)
>
> I thought so, but then the "static inline" versions of northbound
> API(like rte_event_enqueue) will go another file(due to the fact that
> implementation need to deference "dev->data->ports[port_id]"). Do you want that way?
> I would like to keep all northbound API in rte_eventdev.h and not any of them
> in rte_eventdev_pmd.h.
My comment was confusing.
You are doing 2 files, one for API (what you call northbound I think)
and the other one for driver interface (what you call southbound I think),
it's very fine.
> > > +/**
> > > + * Enqueue the event object supplied in the *rte_event* structure on an
> > > + * event device designated by its *dev_id* through the event port specified by
> > > + * *port_id*. The event object specifies the event queue on which this
> > > + * event will be enqueued.
> > > + *
> > > + * @param dev_id
> > > + * Event device identifier.
> > > + * @param port_id
> > > + * The identifier of the event port.
> > > + * @param ev
> > > + * Pointer to struct rte_event
> > > + *
> > > + * @return
> > > + * - 0 on success
> > > + * - <0 on failure. Failure can occur if the event port's output queue is
> > > + * backpressured, for instance.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline int
> > > +rte_event_enqueue(uint8_t dev_id, uint8_t port_id, struct rte_event *ev)
> >
> > Is it really needed to have non-burst variant of enqueue/dequeue?
>
> Yes. certain HW can work only with non burst variants.
Same comment as Bruce, we must keep only the burst variant.
We cannot have different API for different HW.
> > > +/**
> > > + * Converts nanoseconds to *wait* value for rte_event_dequeue()
> > > + *
> > > + * If the device is configured with RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_PER_DEQUEUE_WAIT flag then
> > > + * application can use this function to convert wait value in nanoseconds to
> > > + * implementations specific wait value supplied in rte_event_dequeue()
> >
> > Why is it implementation-specific?
> > Why this conversion is not internal in the driver?
>
> This is for performance optimization, otherwise in drivers
> need to convert ns to ticks in "fast path"
So why not defining the unit of this timeout as CPU cycles like the ones
returned by rte_get_timer_cycles()?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 5:44 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2016-11-23 18:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-24 1:59 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-24 12:26 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-24 15:35 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-11-25 0:23 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-25 11:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-25 13:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-26 0:57 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 9:10 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-26 2:54 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 9:16 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-28 11:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-29 4:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 10:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-25 11:59 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-11-25 12:09 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-11-24 16:24 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-24 19:30 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 16:51 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-07 18:53 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:30 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-08 20:41 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-09 15:11 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:55 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-07 10:57 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-08 1:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 11:02 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-14 13:13 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-14 15:15 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-15 16:54 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-07 11:12 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-08 1:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:40 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-14 15:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-15 13:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] eventdev: define southbound driver interface Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 17:17 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-07 17:02 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:59 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:28 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] eventdev: implement PMD registration functions Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 16:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Bruce Richardson
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/6] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2017-01-25 16:32 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-25 16:36 ` Richardson, Bruce
2017-01-25 16:53 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-25 22:36 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-26 9:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-01-26 20:39 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-27 10:03 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-01-30 10:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:18 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 14:09 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-03 6:38 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-03 10:58 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-02-07 4:59 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/6] eventdev: define southbound driver interface Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:19 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 11:34 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-02 12:53 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 13:58 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-03 5:59 ` Nipun Gupta
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:19 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 14:32 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-03 6:59 ` Nipun Gupta
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] eventdev: implement PMD registration functions Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:20 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-05 13:04 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/6] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/6] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 17:45 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-21 19:13 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 19:31 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-22 15:15 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 18:19 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-22 19:43 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 20:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-22 22:48 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 23:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 15:53 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-29 2:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 3:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 5:46 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-23 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-23 19:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-25 4:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-25 9:55 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-11-25 23:08 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 15:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Bruce Richardson
2016-11-18 16:04 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-18 19:27 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 9:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-21 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-22 0:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-22 2:00 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-11-22 9:05 ` Shreyansh Jain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1883454.103LptOkIX@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gage.eads@intel.com \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).