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 37211A04DD; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:02:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2402BF5; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:02:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f194.google.com (mail-il1-f194.google.com [209.85.166.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE502BE3 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:02:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f194.google.com with SMTP id x20so5111511ilj.8 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:02:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5WlPNvmFMY+ZGZq0Nx4JUK53lsfyAUY98B5cf2e6XGE=; b=Dp1JLeig2W5v+CKBNc0jdQniQet16F+ayZrNh6FR+ocUzLEIVDkRV/qsfBFmVxvJY1 BezEtcKsLHHTiG/yL4vboKPC+SH1Vg/m8dQr9SNgyUKIqj+sUaXpixWkji4WS+oppPm/ 0uBhFXccziMvw4KOPifqWF9EMlAVUOcIaFBF0GbxP7hZTPYrkZcdlmCDLDfuN3x++ed6 mTMhh8XG+eiZHrSAn3K2imrbgTi1UKwLU3us3ClbIbN0vdmgLCa1fqFcEzXHiBgfJ6i+ nqIWYv9HBS6eAZXvI5nkoDVT7wAlNqnTs7bZdm6lrogUnd6CYsqpjKgw9n1PazH3C5wY Y7LQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5WlPNvmFMY+ZGZq0Nx4JUK53lsfyAUY98B5cf2e6XGE=; b=AAuAqhGgTnx/Rr1L2GsuCll8LzgmMAqD/mdolRmmSMSXi4JHPUhf6lK29dCV0k5O5T qw4WUNSZbjgygkLeTNji7ZFSsNFvs/NI8UNrB2fTDWg/wKBKgHh6x8rjv8lerjFDnSSP XZJyiekr66W5TUa+M4/7n3plgyzLsb7Gih+dhwdJIvg9vCGpSJ4pcRX79Q7n1lK5b4Zq NROhZgrkve23fTOqeRy8m0IB+mOqO7Sr8/VFP4cEhgItSeGtaX1upuU8aaMasLo4NsV0 TcheykoPS1yiqw4isvGVa+hjHPTy0u5bLrfeDkyD4KLExE9jqL36UtJ3OMJEvkPG/Iml jEpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336986ckOiYdqf5Sw+/euDXhMOmv/+SEnSm48qrwOWhdvlFRjAV Jx2uylTFXe/Yw5AqPZ3kWoZkiAO/aodadQ7Zsak= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZWwGhy0Jcj0CmA5iOtlTwwVKRtInITfyTk3cPXA77tskj7U+tN1+V4x1XNrk7vaavcWiiv3Xd1u3wZCEdZI0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:51:: with SMTP id i17mr404764ilr.294.1603900927799; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1603494392-7181-1-git-send-email-liang.j.ma@intel.com> <20201028133507.GC29706@sivswdev09.ir.intel.com> <2373759.1G5EZAqFcn@thomas> <20201028153026.GD29706@sivswdev09.ir.intel.com> <20201028154440.GE29706@sivswdev09.ir.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20201028154440.GE29706@sivswdev09.ir.intel.com> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:31:51 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Liang, Ma" Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon , dpdk-dev , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , "Wang, Haiyue" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Hunt, David" , Neil Horman , "McDaniel, Timothy" , "Eads, Gage" , Marcin Wojtas , Guy Tzalik , Ajit Khaparde , Harman Kalra , John Daley , "Wei Hu (Xavier" , Ziyang Xuan , "matan@nvidia.com" , Yong Wang , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/9] Add PMD power mgmt 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" On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:14 PM Liang, Ma wrote: > > On 28 Oct 21:06, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:00 PM Liang, Ma wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Oct 20:44, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 28/10/2020 14:49, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Liang, Ma wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > I think I addressed all of the questions in relation to V9. I don't think I can solve the issue of a generic API on my own. From the > > > > > > Community Call last week Jerin also said that a generic was investigated but that a single solution wasn't feasible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, From the architecture point of view, the specific > > > > > > > functionally of UMONITOR may not be abstracted. > > > > > > > But from the ethdev callback point of view, Can it be abstracted in > > > > > > > such a way that packet notification available through > > > > > > > checking interrupt status register or ring descriptor location, etc by > > > > > > > the driver. Use that callback as a notification mechanism rather > > > > > > > than defining a memory-based scheme that UMONITOR expects? or similar > > > > > > > thoughts on abstraction. > > > > > > > > > > I think there is probably some sort of misunderstanding. > > > > > This API is not about providing acync notification when next packet arrives. > > > > > This is about to putting core to sleep till some event (or timeout) happens. > > > > > From my perspective the closest analogy: cond_timedwait(). > > > > > So we need PMD to tell us what will be the address of the condition variable > > > > > we should sleep on. > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Jerin. > > > > > > The ethdev API is the blocking problem. > > > > > > First problem: it is not well explained in doxygen. > > > > > > Second problem: it is probably not generic enough (if we understand it well) > > > > > > > > > > It is an address to sleep(/wakeup) on, plus expected value. > > > > > Honestly, I can't think-up of anything even more generic then that. > > > > > If you guys have something particular in mind - please share. > > > > > > > > Current PMD callback: > > > > typedef int (*eth_get_wake_addr_t)(void *rxq, volatile void > > > > **tail_desc_addr, + uint64_t *expected, uint64_t *mask, uint8_t > > > > *data_sz); > > > > > > > > Can we make it as > > > > typedef void (*core_sleep_t)(void *rxq) > > > How about void (*eth_core_sleep_helper_t)(void *rxq, enum scheme, void *paramter) > > > by this way, PMD can cast the parameter accorind to the scheme. > > > e.g. if scheme MEM_MONITOR then cast to umwait way. > > > however, this will introduce another problem. > > > we need add PMD query callback to figure out if PMD support this scheme. > > > > I thought scheme/policy something that "application cares" like below > > not arch specifics > > 1) wakeup up on first packet, > > 2) wake me up on first packet or timeout 100 us etc > I need clarify about current design a bit. the purposed API just get target address. > the API itself(include the PMD callback) will not demand the processor to idle/sleep. > we use the post rx callback to do that. for ethdev layer, this API only is used to > fetch target address from PMD, which make minmal impact to existing code. I understand that. But if we move that logic to common code in ethdev as a set of internal PMD helper functions(Helper functions for class of devices and/or arch) then it should be possible. Right? I do understand that, It will call for some rework in the code. I will leave up to ethdev maintainers on specifics. > > > Yes. We can have query on type of the policies supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > if we do such abstraction and "move the polling on memory by HW/CPU" > > > > to the driver using a helper function then > > > > I can think of abstracting in some way in all PMDs. > > > > > > > > Note: core_sleep_t can take some more arguments such as enumerated > > > > policy if something more needs to be pushed to the driver. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This API is experimental and other vendor support can be added as needed. If there are any other open issue let me know? > > > > > > > > > > > > Being experimental is not an excuse to throw something > > > > > > which is not satisfying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >