From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
To: "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:30:23 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161122200022.GA12168@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E32F3E@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 07:43:03PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > > > > > One open issue I noticed is the "typical workflow" description starting in
> > > > rte_eventdev.h:204 conflicts with the centralized software PMD that Harry
> > > > posted last week. Specifically, that PMD expects a single core to call the
> > > > schedule function. We could extend the documentation to account for this
> > > > alternative style of scheduler invocation, or discuss ways to make the
> > software
> > > > PMD work with the documented workflow. I prefer the former, but either
> > way I
> > > > think we ought to expose the scheduler's expected usage to the user --
> > perhaps
> > > > through an RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP flag?
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer former too, you can propose the documentation change required
> > for
> > > > software PMD.
> > >
> > > Sure, proposal follows. The "typical workflow" isn't the most optimal by
> > having a conditional in the fast-path, of course, but it demonstrates the idea
> > simply.
> > >
> > > (line 204)
> > > * An event driven based application has following typical workflow on
> > fastpath:
> > > * \code{.c}
> > > * while (1) {
> > > *
> > > * if (dev_info.event_dev_cap &
> > > * RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED)
> > > * rte_event_schedule(dev_id);
> >
> > Yes, I like the idea of RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED.
> > It can be input to application/subsystem to
> > launch separate core(s) for schedule functions.
> > But, I think, the "dev_info.event_dev_cap &
> > RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED"
> > check can be moved inside the implementation(to make the better decisions
> > and
> > avoiding consuming cycles on HW based schedulers.
>
> How would this check work? Wouldn't it prevent any core from running the software scheduler in the centralized case?
I guess you may not need RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP here, instead need flag for device
configure here
#define RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED (1ULL << 1)
struct rte_event_dev_config config;
config.event_dev_cfg = RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED;
rte_event_dev_configure(.., &config);
on the driver side on configure,
if (config.event_dev_cfg & RTE_EVENT_DEV_CFG_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED)
eventdev->schedule = NULL;
else // centralized case
eventdev->schedule = your_centrized_schedule_function;
Does that work?
>
> >
> > > *
> > > * rte_event_dequeue(...);
> > > *
> > > * (event processing)
> > > *
> > > * rte_event_enqueue(...);
> > > * }
> > > * \endcode
> > > *
> > > * The *schedule* operation is intended to do event scheduling, and the
> > > * *dequeue* operation returns the scheduled events. An implementation
> > > * is free to define the semantics between *schedule* and *dequeue*. For
> > > * example, a system based on a hardware scheduler can define its
> > > * rte_event_schedule() to be an NOOP, whereas a software scheduler can
> > use
> > > * the *schedule* operation to schedule events. The
> > > * RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED capability flag indicates
> > whether
> > > * rte_event_schedule() should be called by all cores or by a single (typically
> > > * dedicated) core.
> > >
> > > (line 308)
> > > #define RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_DISTRIBUTED_SCHED (1ULL < 2)
> > > /**< Event scheduling implementation is distributed and all cores must
> > execute
> > > * rte_event_schedule(). If unset, the implementation is centralized and
> > > * a single core must execute the schedule operation.
> > > *
> > > * \see rte_event_schedule()
> > > */
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On same note, If software PMD based workflow need a separate core(s)
> > for
> > > > > schedule function then, Can we hide that from API specification and pass
> > an
> > > > > argument to SW pmd to define the scheduling core(s)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Something like --vdev=eventsw0,schedule_cmask=0x2
> > >
> > > An API for controlling the scheduler coremask instead of (or perhaps in
> > addition to) the vdev argument would be good, to allow runtime control. I can
> > imagine apps that scale the number of cores based on load, and in doing so
> > may want to migrate the scheduler to a different core.
> >
> > Yes, an API for number of scheduler core looks OK. But if we are going to
> > have service core approach then we just need to specify at one place as
> > application will not creating the service functions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Just a thought,
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps, We could introduce generic "service" cores concept to DPDK to
> > hide
> > > > the
> > > > requirement where the implementation needs dedicated core to do certain
> > > > work. I guess it would useful for other NPU integration in DPDK.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's an interesting idea. As you suggested in the other thread, this concept
> > could be extended to the "producer" code in the example for configurations
> > where the NIC requires software to feed into the eventdev. And to the other
> > subsystems mentioned in your original PDF, crypto and timer.
> >
> > Yes. Producers should come in service core category. I think, that
> > enables us to have better NPU integration.(same application code for
> > NPU vs non NPU)
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-22 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 5:44 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2016-11-23 18:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-24 1:59 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-24 12:26 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-24 15:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-25 0:23 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-25 11:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-25 13:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-26 0:57 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 9:10 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-26 2:54 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 9:16 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-28 11:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-29 4:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 10:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-25 11:59 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-11-25 12:09 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-11-24 16:24 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-24 19:30 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 16:51 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-07 18:53 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:30 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-08 20:41 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-09 15:11 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:55 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-07 10:57 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-08 1:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 11:02 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-14 13:13 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-14 15:15 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-15 16:54 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2016-12-07 11:12 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-08 1:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:40 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-14 15:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-15 13:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] eventdev: define southbound driver interface Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 17:17 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-07 17:02 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-08 9:59 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-12-14 6:28 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] eventdev: implement PMD registration functions Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 3:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-12-06 16:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Bruce Richardson
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/6] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model Jerin Jacob
2017-01-25 16:32 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-25 16:36 ` Richardson, Bruce
2017-01-25 16:53 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-25 22:36 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-26 9:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-01-26 20:39 ` Eads, Gage
2017-01-27 10:03 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-01-30 10:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:18 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 14:09 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-03 6:38 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-03 10:58 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-02-07 4:59 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/6] eventdev: define southbound driver interface Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:19 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 11:34 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-02 12:53 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 13:58 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-03 5:59 ` Nipun Gupta
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/6] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:19 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-02 14:32 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-02-03 6:59 ` Nipun Gupta
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/6] eventdev: implement PMD registration functions Jerin Jacob
2017-02-02 11:20 ` Nipun Gupta
2017-02-05 13:04 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/6] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-12-21 9:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/6] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 17:45 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-21 19:13 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 19:31 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-22 15:15 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 18:19 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-22 19:43 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 20:00 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2016-11-22 22:48 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 23:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-28 15:53 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-29 2:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 3:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-29 5:46 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-23 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-23 19:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-25 4:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-25 9:55 ` Richardson, Bruce
2016-11-25 23:08 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 5:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs Jerin Jacob
2016-11-18 15:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Bruce Richardson
2016-11-18 16:04 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-18 19:27 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-21 9:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-21 9:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-11-22 0:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-22 2:00 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-11-22 9:05 ` Shreyansh Jain
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=20161122200022.GA12168@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com \
--to=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gage.eads@intel.com \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.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).