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 AD6A6A04DD; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:58:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8799CC78; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:57:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com [209.85.166.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE4CCBF0 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:57:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id r9so5853290ioo.7 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:57:55 -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=kX8T0NKNNzqB0Ev2aonNO8v3DBF8o5Lxue9L6a+q/rA=; b=igmFC9d4U2GRbIWVj9yCLNiYJzM4CeYqKLFJDI8yMBXTjZunD3xQLyNvDHOmzb9KAe mNR8P1sR+iS3i+rsAr1Mdd2Fj7Be+HD/qoCqkQ66fZ50tz5e/lpO1NiGfbWP6tCXdG4z 29G8Rkh7TcXE1gmbLbHiKfYikWKVEVcC7J0rhhcMsNzDPxW3pq33khd7DS9Px/seUmVb S57nomcqJswEsRDMozWvJi3A0AUOqcLQ0+E5YyMIgSdqKfY4/Lgpx+rOjjRrkOZLLEL3 fzj44FOH5lqKZ0D6ylTY2/fYv8qAP20NsH2cI+LaxeldVS1IK03lyki/TiwZJNx6yKcT 7d5Q== 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=kX8T0NKNNzqB0Ev2aonNO8v3DBF8o5Lxue9L6a+q/rA=; b=LxnmSStH1GZupicTvgubU7UJ+UpOAOxfzBPWvU3gTpti4U+8grkwCTuN6+hoAGh1U5 tcJRO094e6X+Nz8zJuaVwn6zdp3HT049srfNqXlu0UTZrU/Y+AXw+g1pub5hMf35RnLX gavqhEQTGk7exULTE1OPnrXfDJKmIeTzuqFb8pjk7iVWHebQb7LyyubZhn7EELjdvdoo TbRzpki21eRefkSGOq86OuFsj+ahPHqcby/vIC0SoB94cBkIM8wi4aGR/rsxZuv3a/QM qBPNmuY0AsIUFxYekG1ctvT26B11hye6QYDDeZgiqwA0rOgvY7b4Ef27rcyDdoMjR1V4 zYvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533B62hs5uix2ptuY/qPf2WmdCuepIF/qTjh9inHLH++42ctedbY cAaGlqWPvP/0Qz78IuWg9bTlvruq5/P/7O/3tE0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxienGLRZpMYkl0nGGeIl0vtwi3j+NOUy6KLMDoX8esYUyunsfu6ZGBNWQ3nwktNCKGeqW8B5LS7siqbw2iXOk= X-Received: by 2002:a02:6ccd:: with SMTP id w196mr5586533jab.133.1603900673364; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:57:53 -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> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:27:37 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Ma, Liang J" , 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 9:19 PM Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:40 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Ma, Liang J ; 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 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Add PMD power mgmt > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:04 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) > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Ok I see, thanks for explanation. > > > From my perspective main disadvantage of such approach - > > > it can't be extended easily. > > > If/when will have an ability for core to sleep/wake-up on multiple events > > > (multiple addresses) will have to either rework that API again. > > > > I think, we can enumerate the policies and pass the associated > > structures as input to the driver. > > What I am trying to say: with that API we will not be able to wait > for events from multiple devices (HW queues). > I.E. something like that: > > get_wake_addr(port=X, ..., &addr[0], ...); > get_wake_addr(port=Y,..., &addr[1],...); > wait_on_multi(addr, 2); > > wouldn't be possible. I see. But the current implementation dictates the only queue bound to a core. Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >