From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA21A04DE; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:47:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DB1C9B6; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:47:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C2AC9AC for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:47:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC82EE7B; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:47:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= 85rgqtrGdODTTw2AbU/4PKpFKPeJdAauk9KEa+APFxs=; b=H53n7OPflqVz1/G9 7lpSydu8fFLC5lCxSpxEJWOBtrDZ8Q84eg8kTi1OWlCoJo2RBciTKKqSk67si80K uoy/ZLyX0fcuGP+maboADd//+gEOBddd1p3Z5RiuDM7Cbp1g26N/RqoX7zPlPGMt GL22D8rTd3GpdwicyVh744x3zMUiTVoUoM940q4ozqNjK7OdT9mt4/mpiV9/f8kV /KK+oC7jlAnbwLOPw1RN51n1+UidLmi3wA0Ocf4iOvf5tMauxMFvAObViYAk53lY FJsoho4I4wGb/HS8yfGUySUokVXuIFgrBCIyjt6FxvffPzDBBPItfVxRyxvXGJ7w C5NfaQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=85rgqtrGdODTTw2AbU/4PKpFKPeJdAauk9KEa+APF xs=; b=FYmaq2sQ53oWY0q67PjqBM31w/jlQYlGCU2hduncEf78KxnIcf2EtqNKc 9M9HhnIWAJEjuzctYu/2dB7ODGRqDNxM3FjQtk2Zg/zmsamDDzZEPLpEgi3lcXBJ Y5GnG2020h0V7//MKQ6wop4Z+H0UbzSVpwF1m4E7l6taxkhttOhl8E7DlEJSueI0 PNQLsmJ6Ufch+gvxKOKtb4abnbXItEZIB9QAjPfBPQucpYNPJnBrej2tmLilXqT5 JPx1wSKCPjKZEsavg54+l8QNKF7xvisIKa9fSVeLF4eNIJ4QVSWEDJVLhzhORbkI myPjvcJu9XONIzaWZJzgXM+QgQMIQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrleehgdejiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0D538328005A; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "McDaniel, Timothy" Cc: "'dev@dpdk.org'" , "Carrillo, Erik G" , "Eads, Gage" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "'jerinj@marvell.com'" , "'david.marchand@redhat.com'" Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <5792010.8yoxlyRsN9@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1602958879-8558-2-git-send-email-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com> <5348013.yrGTY7C4b0@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/23] Add DLB2 PMD X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/10/2020 16:35, McDaniel, Timothy: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 30/10/2020 12:58, McDaniel, Timothy: > > > From: McDaniel, Timothy > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > > 30/10/2020 10:43, Timothy McDaniel: > > > > > > - note that the code still uses its private byte-encoded versions of > > > > > > umonitor/umwait, rather than the new functions in the power > > > > > > patch that are built on top of those intrinsics. This is intentional. > > > > > > > > > > Why? Now these intrinsics are available in the main branch. > > > > > We should avoid duplicating such code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had asked that the low level intrinsics (UMWAIT/UMONITOR) be split out so > > > > that DLB/DLB2 could use them instead of its own private byte-encoded > > versions, > > > > but instead we have these wrappers that call the low level intrinsics. Those > > > > wrappers > > > > introduce additional overhead that is not required for DLB/DLB2. I have a > > > > meeting with Ma Liang on Monday to discuss. > > > > > > I thought the ask of DLB was to just substitute the low level umwait/umonitor > > byte > > > encoded instructions DLB has defined privately with similar byte-encoded > > instructions defined in the power > > > patch. The power patch does not directly expose those, which is why I did not > > update DLB/DLB2. > > > The power patch does have the advantage of centralizing the race avoidance > > > logic, which is a good thing for any PMD that wishes to take advantage of > > umwait/umonitor. > > > > So you mean the overhead is a good thing? > > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I just misunderstood what was being asked of DLB in > > regard to switching over.. That being said, > > > I am willing to convert DLB/DLB2 to use rte_power_monitor(...) in a future > > patch-set. > > > > Why not now? > > > > Indeed there is a confusion and it looks like a lot of novlang > > to exit from the situation. > > We'll wait a clear decision with facts. > > > > Hi Thomas, > > I have updated DLB and DLB2 to use rte_power_monitor(...), and those patches are > ready if you are willing to accept them and the 3 power patches. > > For the sake of consistency, I see the benefit of using the power patch, even if it is > slightly less efficient that the DLB-specific implementation that I currently have. > We have already encountered an empty queue, so this is no longer fast path for the PMD. I am really concerned that the API in EAL is not the most efficient. Why is that? Can we improve the EAL API?