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 05:13:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161122234331.GA20501@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E331A3@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:48:32PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 2:00 PM
> > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Van
> > Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs
> >
> > 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?
>
> Hm, I fear the API would give users the impression that they can select the scheduling behavior of a given eventdev, when a software scheduler is more likely to be either distributed or centralized -- not both.
Even if it is capability flag then also it is per "device". Right ?
capability flag is more of read only too. Am i missing something here?
>
> What if we use the capability flag, and define rte_event_schedule() as the scheduling function for centralized schedulers and rte_event_dequeue() as the scheduling function for distributed schedulers? That way, the datapath could be the simple dequeue -> process -> enqueue. Applications would check the capability flag at configuration time to decide whether or not to launch an lcore that calls rte_event_schedule().
I am all for simple "dequeue -> process -> enqueue".
rte_event_schedule() added for SW scheduler only, now it may not make
sense to add one more check on top of "rte_event_schedule()" to see
it is really need or not in fastpath?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > *
> > > > > * 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 23:43 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
2016-11-22 22:48 ` Eads, Gage
2016-11-22 23:43 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
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=20161122234331.GA20501@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).