From: "Mattias Rönnblom" <hofors@lysator.liu.se>
To: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Stefan Sundkvist <stefan.sundkvist@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] service: extend service function call statistics
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:16:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00d77f04-206b-4cb0-af4e-5d33d70ca320@lysator.liu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH8PR11MB6803496326DA2824F2A29E22D77E2@PH8PR11MB6803.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On 2024-01-29 13:50, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mattias Rönnblom <hofors@lysator.liu.se>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 7:32 PM
>> To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Mattias Rönnblom
>> <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; Stefan Sundkvist
>> <stefan.sundkvist@ericsson.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC] service: extend service function call statistics
>
> Hi Mattias,
>
> Thanks for the patch, looks good to me! Some responses to discussion below;
>
> Acked-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
>
>> On 2024-01-26 11:07, Morten Brørup wrote:
>>>> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors@lysator.liu.se]
>>>> Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.28
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-01-26 00:19, Morten Brørup wrote:
>>>>>> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 20.15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add two new per-service counters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RTE_SERVICE_ATTR_IDLE_CALL_COUNT tracks the number of service
>>>> function
>>>>>> invocations where no work was performed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RTE_SERVICE_ATTR_ERROR_CALL_COUNT tracks the number invocations
>>>>>> resulting in an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The semantics of RTE_SERVICE_ATTR_CALL_COUNT remains the same (i.e.,
>>>>>> counting all invocations, regardless of return value).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new statistics may be useful for both debugging and profiling
>>>>>> (e.g., calculate the average per-call processing latency for non-
>>>> idle
>>>>>> service calls).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Service core tests are extended to cover the new counters, and
>>>>>> coverage for RTE_SERVICE_ATTR_CALL_COUNT is improved.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK to all of the above. Good stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The documentation for the CYCLES attributes are updated to reflect
>>>>>> their actual semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is intended behavior, then updating the documentation seems
>>>> appropriate - I would even go so far as considering it a bug fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, quite a few cycles may be consumed by a service before it
>>>> can conclude that it had no work to do. Shouldn't that be considered
>>>> time spent by the service? I.e. should the code be fixed instead of the
>>>> documentation?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Generally, polling for new work in the service is cheap, in my
>>>> experience. But there's nothing in principle that prevents the
>>>> situation
>>>> your describe from occurring. You could add an "IDLE_CYCLES" counter in
>>>> case that would ever be a real-world problem.
>>>>
>>>> That wouldn't be a fix, but rather just returning to the old, subtly
>>>> broken, (pre-22.11?) semantics.
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at 809bd24 to see the rationale for the change. There's an
>>>> example in 4689c57.
>>>>
>>>> The cause of this ambiguity is due to the fact that the platform/OS
>>>> (i.e., DPDK) doesn't know which service to "wake up" (which in turn is
>>>> the result of the platform not being able to tracking input sources,
>>>> like NIC RX queues or timer wheels) and thus must ask every service to
>>>> check if it has something to do.
>>>
>>> OK. Makes good sense.
>>> So definitely fix the documentation, not the code. :-)
>
> Agreed.
>
>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, keep the behavior (for backwards compatibility) and
>>>> fix the documentation, as this patch does, and add an IDLE_CYCLES
>>>> counter for time spent in idle calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: We're not using DPDK service cores in our applications, so I'm
>>>> not familiar with the details. We are using something somewhat similar
>>>> (but homegrown), also for profiling and power management purposes, and
>>>> my feedback is based on my experience with our own variant of service
>>>> cores.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When are you making the switch to service cores? :)
>>>
>>> Our own "service cores" implementation has some slightly different properties,
>> which we are still experimenting with.
>>>
>>> E.g. in addition to the special return value "idle (no work to do)", we also have a
>> special return value for "incomplete (more work urgently pending)" when a service
>> processed a full burst and still has more work pending its input queue.
>>>
>>> We are also considering returning a value to inform what time it needs to be called
>> again. This concept is only an idea, and we haven't started experimenting with it yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> From a high level perspective, the service cores library is much like an operating
>> system's CPU scheduler, although based on voluntary time sharing. Many algorithms
>> and many parameters can be considered. It can also tie into power management and
>> prioritization of different tasks.
>
> This was brought up as a concern when initially adding it to DPDK; the scope of service-cores
> is quite easily going to change from "way to run a dataplane function on a core, to abstract
> away the different environments that DPDK runs" to "userspace scheduler with bells-and-whistles".
>
Yes, and in a hypothetical DPDK without Eventdev or competing deferred
work mechanisms that would have been a natural evolution.
> The reason service-cores was built was to allow applications run with HW & SW eventdev PMDs,
> and not have to handle the different threading requirements at the application level. This goal is
> achieved by the current service-cores infrastructure.
>
It's a generic and public API. I'm not sure I think it matters much what
service it was initially built. There's no "PMD use only" label on it,
which is a good thing.
>
>> Service cores in their current form is more like a primitive kernel
>> bottom half implementation.
>>
>> The primary work scheduler in DPDK is Eventdev, but even with Eventdev
>> you want some way to fit non-event kind of processing as well, and here
>> services cores serves a role.
>>
>> rte_service.c is a good place for power management. I agree some means
>> for the services to convey what latency (e.g., sleep time) is acceptable
>> is needed. Returning a time per service function invocation would be a
>> flexible way to do so. Could also just be a per-lcore, or global
>> configuration, set by the application.
>
> While I agree it is potentially a place to implement power management, sleeping etc... to do so expands
> the scope of service-cores significantly; not something that we should do without considerable thought.
Doesn't have to be significant in terms of lines of code to develop and
maintain, and the actual logic could (and probably should) sit
elsewhere. Such a feature could start off as just a lcore-is-idle-hook
to the application, and it would decided what to do, if anything.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-30 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-25 19:15 Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-25 23:19 ` Morten Brørup
2024-01-26 8:28 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-26 10:07 ` Morten Brørup
2024-01-27 19:31 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-29 12:50 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2024-01-30 7:16 ` Mattias Rönnblom [this message]
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=00d77f04-206b-4cb0-af4e-5d33d70ca320@lysator.liu.se \
--to=hofors@lysator.liu.se \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=stefan.sundkvist@ericsson.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).