DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"Tummala, Sivaprasad" <Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com>,
	"david.hunt@intel.com" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:48:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c586ab87-0297-0ed2-61b6-b819d961f758@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8yofoo4R-NEqAQj6uUBsuCbNk-tS3s2yNWGrupSM7xgjg@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/14/2023 8:05 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 7:51 PM Tummala, Sivaprasad
> <Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 5:30 PM
>>> To: Tummala, Sivaprasad <Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com>
>>> Cc: david.hunt@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon
>>> <thomas@monjalon.net>; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx
>>>
>>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
>>> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 1:54 PM Sivaprasad Tummala
>>> <sivaprasad.tummala@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add a new CPUID flag to indicate support for monitorx instruction on
>>>> AMD Epyc processors.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala <sivaprasad.tummala@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  lib/eal/include/generic/rte_cpuflags.h | 2 ++
>>>>  lib/eal/x86/include/rte_cpuflags.h     | 1 +
>>>>  lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c             | 3 +++
>>>>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_cpuflags.h
>>>> b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_cpuflags.h
>>>> index d35551e931..db653a8dd7 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_cpuflags.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_cpuflags.h
>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ struct rte_cpu_intrinsics {
>>>>         /**< indicates support for rte_power_pause function */
>>>>         uint32_t power_monitor_multi : 1;
>>>>         /**< indicates support for rte_power_monitor_multi function */
>>>> +       uint32_t amd_power_monitorx : 1;
>>>> +       /**< indicates amd support for rte_power_monitor function */
>>>
>>> I did not look at the patch detail, I just stopped at this part.
>>> What makes the AMD monitorx stuff special that it needs to be exposed in the
>>> generic API?
>>
>> Monitorx is different ISA /opcode (0F 01 FA) as compared to UMonitor (0F 01 C8). This need to be distinguished
>> on specific x86 platforms. Hence in the current power intrinsics, for x86 we require a new flag to
>> distinguish MonitorX and UMonitor and invoke the appropriate x86 ISA in the datapath.
> 
> Requiring a new x86 cpuflag to identify this ISA presence is ok.
> 
> 
> But here, I am talking about the generic power instrinsic API.
> Let me phrase my comment differently...
> 
> As described in the API:
>         uint32_t power_monitor : 1;
>         /**< indicates support for rte_power_monitor function */
> 
> Does AMD thing behave completely different from the x86?
> Looking at patch 3, I understand this is not the case.
> 
> So we don't need a "amd" flag in the generic flags.
> The indirection for calling the right ISA should be hidden in
> rte_power_* helpers implemented for x86.
> 
> 


The 'rte_cpu_get_intrinsics_support()' API and "struct
rte_cpu_intrinsics" struct seems intended to get power features in
generic way, agree to keep it generic.

But also there is a need to run architecture specific instructions, so
need to know the architecture within power library, for this what do you
think to check 'MONITORX' support again in 'rte_power_intrinsics_init()'
function?


And most of the 'amd_power_monitorx()' function is duplicate of the
'rte_power_monitor()' API, only difference is the asm calls, what do you
think to extract these calls to function pointers for AMD and Intel, so
that 'rte_power_monitor()' can become a x86 generic function?

As architecture will be known in the 'rte_power_intrinsics_init()', we
can set the function pointers properly for architecture in this init stage.

Only concern is possible performance impact of pointer dereference
instead of direct call, I hope @David Hunt can help us to test the
performance impact of it in Intel platforms if this approach is reasonable.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-04-14 11:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-13 11:53 Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-13 11:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] doc: announce new cpu flag added to rte_cpu_flag_t Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-17  4:31   ` [PATCH v3 1/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:14     ` [PATCH v4 0/4] power: monitor support for AMD EPYC processors Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:25     ` Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 1/4] doc: announce new cpu flag added to rte_cpu_flag_t Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:52         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-04-18  9:22           ` Bruce Richardson
2023-06-01  9:23             ` David Marchand
2023-07-05 11:32         ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-16 18:59         ` [PATCH v5 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 18:59           ` [PATCH v5 2/3] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 18:59           ` [PATCH v5 3/3] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 19:27             ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 11:34               ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-08-17 14:18                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-18 13:25                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-18 13:48                     ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-21 15:42                       ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 22:30                       ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-23  9:19                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-23 16:03                           ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-24  9:04                             ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-25 16:00                               ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-30 22:45                                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-09-27 10:38                                   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-09-28 10:11                                     ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-10-06  8:26             ` David Marchand
2023-10-09  8:02               ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-10-09 14:05             ` [PATCH v6 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-09 14:05               ` [PATCH v6 2/3] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-09 14:05               ` [PATCH v6 3/3] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-10  8:59                 ` David Marchand
2023-10-11  9:33                   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-10-10 10:14                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-10-09 16:23               ` [PATCH v6 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Patrick Robb
2023-10-10  8:21                 ` David Marchand
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 2/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:15         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 3/4] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:14         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 4/4] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:14         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-13 11:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-17  4:34   ` [PATCH v3 4/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-13 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx David Marchand
2023-04-13 17:50   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-04-14  7:05     ` David Marchand
2023-04-14  8:51       ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-04-14 11:48       ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2023-04-17  4:32 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala

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=c586ab87-0297-0ed2-61b6-b819d961f758@amd.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).