From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vangati@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] [PATCH v2] libeventdev: event driven programming model framework for DPDK
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:04:42 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161102123441.GA2564@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161102114506.GB40328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:45:07AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:17:04PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:11:03PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob
> > > >
> > > > So far, I have received constructive feedback from Intel, NXP and Linaro folks.
> > > > Let me know, if anyone else interested in contributing to the definition of eventdev?
> > > >
> > > > If there are no major issues in proposed spec, then Cavium would like work on
> > > > implementing and up-streaming the common code(lib/librte_eventdev/) and
> > > > an associated HW driver.(Requested minor changes of v2 will be addressed
> > > > in next version).
> > >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Two queries,
> >
> > 1) In SW implementation, Is their any connection between "struct
> > rte_event_port_conf"'s dequeue_queue_depth and enqueue_queue_depth ?
> > i.e it should be enqueue_queue_depth >= dequeue_queue_depth. Right ?
> > Thought of adding the common checks in common layer.
>
> I think this is probably best left to the driver layers to enforce. For
> us, such a restriction doesn't really make sense, though in many cases
> that would be the usual setup. For accurate load balancing, the dequeue
> queue depth would be small, and the burst size would probably equal the
> queue depth, meaning the enqueue depth needs to be at least as big.
> However, for better throughput, or in cases where all traffic is being
> coalesced to a single core e.g. for transmit out a network port, there
> is no need to keep the dequeue queue shallow and so it can be many times
> the burst size, while the enqueue queue can be kept to 1-2 times the
> burst size.
>
OK
> >
> > 2)Any comments on follow item(section under ----) that needs improvement.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Abstract the differences in event QoS management with different
> > priority schemes available in different HW or SW implementations with portable
> > application workflow.
> >
> > Based on the feedback, there three different kinds of QoS support
> > available in
> > three different HW or SW implementations.
> > 1) Priority associated with the event queue
> > 2) Priority associated with each event enqueue
> > (Same flow can have two different priority on two separate enqueue)
> > 3) Priority associated with the flow(each flow has unique priority)
> >
> > In v2, The differences abstracted based on device capability
> > (RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_QUEUE_QOS for the first scheme,
> > RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS for the second and third scheme).
> > This scheme would call for different application workflow for
> > nontrivial QoS-enabled applications.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > After thinking a while, I think, RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS is a
> > super-set.if so, the subset RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_QUEUE_QOS can be
> > implemented with RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS. i.e We may not need two
> > flags, Just one flag RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS is enough to fix
> > portability issue with basic QoS enabled applications.
> >
> > i.e Introduce RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS as config option in device
> > configure stage if application needs fine granularity on QoS per event
> > enqueue.For trivial applications, configured
> > rte_event_queue_conf->priority can be used as rte_event_enqueue(struct
> > rte_event.priority)
> >
> So all implementations should support the concept of priority among
> queues, and then there is optional support for event or flow based
> prioritization. Is that a correct interpretation of what you propose?
Yes. If you _can_ implement it and if possible in the system.
>
> /Bruce
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-02 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-04 21:49 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] " Vangati, Narender
2016-10-05 7:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-07 10:40 ` Hemant Agrawal
2016-10-09 8:27 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-11 19:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC] [PATCH v2] " Jerin Jacob
2016-10-14 4:14 ` Bill Fischofer
2016-10-14 9:26 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-14 10:30 ` Hemant Agrawal
2016-10-14 12:52 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-14 15:00 ` Eads, Gage
2016-10-17 4:18 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-17 20:26 ` Eads, Gage
2016-10-18 11:19 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-14 16:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-10-17 5:10 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-25 17:49 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-26 12:11 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-10-26 12:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-26 12:54 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-10-28 3:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-28 8:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-10-28 9:06 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 11:25 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 11:35 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-02 13:09 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 13:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-02 14:54 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-26 18:37 ` Vincent Jardin
2016-10-28 13:10 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-11-02 10:47 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 11:45 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-02 12:34 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2016-10-26 12:43 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-10-26 17:30 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-28 13:48 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-10-28 14:16 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-02 8:59 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 8:06 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-02 11:48 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-02 12:57 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-14 15:00 Francois Ozog
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=20161102123441.GA2564@localhost.localdomain \
--to=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gage.eads@intel.com \
--cc=narender.vangati@intel.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).