From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3BE7CDE for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:12:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Sep 2017 06:12:10 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,427,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="1222369565" Received: from dhunt5-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.44]) ([10.237.220.44]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2017 06:12:09 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" References: <1503676941-80981-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <8711422.RO3QJ0tz1I@xps> <1541048.iMoFMbgTmX@xps> From: "Hunt, David" Message-ID: <6d81ac23-09aa-becd-6cc3-5e4d9418cb75@intel.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:12:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1541048.iMoFMbgTmX@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/10] Policy Based Power Control for Guest 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:12 -0000 On 22/9/2017 2:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 22/09/2017 12:28, Hunt, David: >> On 22/9/2017 10:51 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 29/08/2017 15:03, Ananyev, Konstantin: >>>> Hi Dave, >>>> >>>>> This patchset adds the facility for a guest VM to send a policy down to >>>>> the host that will allow the host to scale up/down cpu frequencies >>>>> depending on the policy criteria independently of the DPDK app running in >>>>> the guest. This differs from the previous vm_power implementation where >>>>> individual scale up/down requests were send from the guest to the host via >>>>> virtio-serial. >>>>> >>>>> It's a modification of the vm_power_manager app that runs in the host, and >>>>> the guest_vm_power_app example app that runs in the guest. This allows the >>>>> guest to send down a policy to the host via virtio-serial, which then allows >>>>> the host to scale up/down based on the criteria in the policy, resulting in >>>>> quicker scale up/down than individual requests coming from the guest. >>>>> It also means that the DPDK application running in the guest does not need >>>>> to be modified in any way, it is unaware that it's cores are being scaled >>>>> up/down, reducing the effort in implementing a power-aware infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> The usage model is as follows: >>>>> 1. Set up the VF's and assign to the guest in the usual way. >>>>> 2. run vm_power_manager on the host, creating a channel to the guest. >>>>> 3. Start the guest_vm_power_mgr app on the guest, which establishes >>>>> a virtio-serial channel to the host. >>>>> 4. Send down the profile for the guest using the "send_profile now" command. >>>>> There is an example profile hard-coded into guest_vm_power_mgr. >>>>> 5. Stop the guest_vm_power_mgr and run your normal power-unaware application. >>>>> 6. Send traffic into the VFs at varying traffic rates. >>>>> Observe the frequency change on the host (turbostat -i 1) >>>>> >>>>> The sequence of code changes are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Firstly, two new API calls are added to the ethdev layer >>>>> 1. One to convert a VF id to a PF id. In the patchset >>>>> this id is a MAC address. This is needed so that the host can map the VFs >>>>> in the profile to PF so in can monitor the traffic on the relevant PF at the >>>>> host level. >>>>> 2. The other function is to read the low-level traffic throughput on the NIC. >>>>> Currently this API reads a NIC register for speed, but we are looking at >>>>> using a more generic way to get these stats, suggestions welcome. >>>> Why do you need a server (host) to collect RX/TX statistics for VM? >>>> Such method seems to have a lot of limitations: >>>> - no clear method to identify to which VM that VF belongs. >>>> - rely on HW ability to provide such statistics for PF >>>> (limited HW support). >>>> - wouldn't work if PF is not controlled by the same DPDK app. >>>> Why not to make it client(VM) responsibility to collect that statistics and >>>> periodically send it to the server? >>>> Then server just will have to process that data and make decision. >>> Any progress Dave? >>> >>> You have another series "turbo boost API". Does it depends on this one? >> Hi Thomas, >> >> We're still working on updates based on Konstantin's feedback above, and >> hope to have a new patch set submitted to the mailing list early next >> week. This will remove the ethdev layer changes, and uses pre-existing >> stats-api. >> >> In relation to the Turbo patch, they are still independent, but when we >> have the next revision of the Policy patch submitted, I'll do a new >> version of the Turbo patch so that it can be applied on top of the >> policy patch. > OK, thanks > > If the turbo patch is independent, I can push it now? Yes, absolutely. And I can then ensure the next version of the policy patch-set applies on top of it. Regards, Dave.