From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0080.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.80]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48DA2934 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:43:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=CAVIUMNETWORKS.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cavium-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=cTPgYWUnmN/MWklH3mRkGiMaQkm73Dquphw7BjeYKx0=; b=opgmKtpsJD66SM3DndnlvZG8gvce7GXsw73F3StS+U7R3+h3B1HuiBtQO/9gnWhS811VKnTCxhLYIw3bXhhFRNCGlP0VTs1wXwJ53UZgRruyLCmBtOZw6nJ9TUFVb39vNkMCyQka2FAppoX8Ag4DjAQlDol4dzj75oLKzL9lxnU= Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Jerin.Jacob@cavium.com; Received: from svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com (50.233.148.156) by BN3PR0701MB1717.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.39.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.12; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:43:35 +0000 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 05:13:32 +0530 From: Jerin Jacob To: "Eads, Gage" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" Message-ID: <20161122234331.GA20501@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> References: <1479447902-3700-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <1479447902-3700-3-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E31739@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <20161121191358.GA9044@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <20161121193133.GA9895@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E31C40@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <20161122181913.GA9456@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E32F3E@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <20161122200022.GA12168@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E331A3@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9184057F7FC11744A2107296B6B8EB1E01E331A3@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-Originating-IP: [50.233.148.156] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0501CA0025.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.162.139.35) To BN3PR0701MB1717.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.39.16) X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 2:xN2UetnsFgQOmQXxPUuTL5OGIEulgFgTWDo7y+RwEVAnHTpyHlOej3RXGWbaGeyfejuOpgk39fsMEaUty86hMAYLlHp8yHLmHza+npLyRw9W8k68zF1LQ4371uedd5+xEhVTdoWla4RRioVX/LPV/mFmRxXpCXR7dsoh97PZcqw=; 3:jxhQtaK4zkilafeB0pxvZdb5tkjYemYiMWUDpIrmLR74QTKSJWJNgUTwsFG1A+N0vj/gXpEXzFwhcy02InkFyDO3q+NtXJfxEs9QFHfZHKAzlnS+GxOeMkulamBKbTobC3nuQdvLDxDUSX5er2mdmjGNuaI/nBRES2Ev5L7YLE4= X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 9ea89a7b-abcd-4ed8-bc6f-08d413316053 X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BN3PR0701MB1717; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 25: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 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 31:UHxRNUwELP8Ykt+KNx5PkSo348D/rzx0lIuXkqP7kvnOAvdMM8M60212WAjtoD4ICXkrg+C2wrdZ07153epFUEJZuKW8KOLDShoNoi6BovJKVSUAZjDd2W+JkIu6LxaYXKcNSFH3ysQdGst/pF8h1VJwGg8KK3ikNHpRcq9Sxxr3jazZwDg/hWAp8UF3Oh7A+z+9UkDrmLTT/G9quD2YLx1Laqt9TukZiVXlBdSBHxJ2H/+4IVLagaH0CJXzSpglQ7NbK+Z266n6O4NxjKW/QA==; 20: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 X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(271806183753584)(185117386973197)(228905959029699)(17755550239193); X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040307)(6060326)(6045199)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6061324)(6041248); SRVR:BN3PR0701MB1717; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0701MB1717; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 4: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 X-Forefront-PRVS: 0134AD334F X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4630300001)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(24454002)(13464003)(76094002)(377454003)(189002)(8676002)(101416001)(2950100002)(76176999)(42882006)(8666005)(1076002)(54356999)(305945005)(5660300001)(6916009)(4326007)(38730400001)(2906002)(110136003)(229853002)(69596002)(83506001)(81156014)(7846002)(50986999)(81166006)(77096005)(53416004)(4001350100001)(92566002)(7736002)(97756001)(3846002)(105586002)(23726003)(561944003)(6666003)(189998001)(97736004)(46406003)(47776003)(9686002)(93886004)(68736007)(66066001)(50466002)(33656002)(6116002)(42186005)(106356001)(18370500001)(7059030); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0701MB1717; H:svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: cavium.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?us-ascii?Q?1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 23:enWeV3KGfIKd+ZqbDTvw/B6qQiSnoTLAOkkr20n?= =?us-ascii?Q?CEpe8HeCwm7GdC8hUzVfF176qyJjumkx1swiks0YuWzFmPQO7he50k0FrqLt?= =?us-ascii?Q?rEgZd6P+PdFsGS4/sBNmJ+zo+1efkhVd7CP8f5eMZdlBhlF4ZJSSKRiw26wl?= =?us-ascii?Q?OKLy9AP9bRzQ/MS0OUWwBABdueXpMxJdNeQ0hE8OCY93fPS1xFe0lk1SM8wn?= =?us-ascii?Q?njcZFj97d5/9LP7pk9SMrK8cqJ6oeHB8FQH83JLk5l00VAY8m4wfyj1853qi?= =?us-ascii?Q?rwnY3MYh6pUTXXSCsg4hmnf3nAW8RyEtHs6h7xRu/3MqvivM6gGbsAFKtXJ9?= =?us-ascii?Q?2JBdQYR44hQfRW7QBBxT36phu7JOj3jeiyRXd+ykyS8/o1KPUqZUgBk6jEqx?= =?us-ascii?Q?0amokfncbfIc8Whe3Uw/HHwfAznViTGBsDfbsC7UK0waHbpNSwyZdOesb/SJ?= =?us-ascii?Q?1BfCG3zu3TebgAwkwCLOWq8FusRjaSFn5kbcbu4IMdvSN9hhCKhHSfAB02wz?= =?us-ascii?Q?eE8AGRxbTnTXI905NRwGp1oKUY1EqskT2J4TO/ITXQ9jrPjkKgaw5z+xCbUw?= =?us-ascii?Q?02PqRxJIxPbWtAqXqy0rh2c+l3n26A4fEuo2B4CjCcvqumVHGBwW44lD7uPu?= =?us-ascii?Q?L8GNQMQziu9t9EEPclBjikjOmkKbYT7whnMR9WBw2USd19v1bbNbKBi8mMYX?= =?us-ascii?Q?KDzepPygmCjVhoMvaomTCFkOtLd4cPBldzxWbX2EkGxgHCT7jwtDU+4DBZiN?= =?us-ascii?Q?f9gWgeoShJhZsN6ugAZPWn1mlS94j7AS+6sltdsXD6PvTG5RYSm35TnwmIEJ?= =?us-ascii?Q?7sFFsiumRzY8843C7RhZDUHP7Hk6d/h35GxzIChF2EiT++8wDfpeD5/UVBi2?= =?us-ascii?Q?fn5sxksIsKVqcdZVS1Jv4ImL8RCHwFAThSPQdKPsN1nAStrk/mW1lDXxaVGU?= =?us-ascii?Q?OXVU06R74D7i4kIvq/s912JVsQBvKhValqqs07vtFhkerJLi4im+c0xRmigL?= =?us-ascii?Q?K0XA22/COdTqw9oaU9tgomCWvIbgfJjd80p1clKrkfoB6eEMHa3sSGQnPIw4?= =?us-ascii?Q?c4TPi3kEac96o1RBFvPreuyeudaovvMcs2X7SvLdlbdGHGp8Mdeitfra9kf0?= =?us-ascii?Q?UZR9Np6yZlYovypphQSC9jW8uuzwx6RZKPFwZyh3D18jn2fct7dtvv1+SvBG?= =?us-ascii?Q?lNpNtwBEVDDwDcGauTSHLHNm32QXHYfmyQkoDxdEshlESkaeV1huADn49jjg?= =?us-ascii?Q?f3ONmhEgOXyCdkH0B26ZAyGVDFpu9qGCKhurKyxffazrCa7eT1i4y3OIkMCy?= =?us-ascii?Q?NBjCwCAcdDqC/LXI6h07DG+9609sIcOyLynKD7aMCgfARokPsElyEZnoBquL?= =?us-ascii?Q?qAW40TI0J8HOcc7v/JvXFnCO+7eJpJY1g2hxMEuAgiY+p3yFA?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 6:U7IEkCx9iJTHUrqeXRrHFOjD8y085mPDYR+PmQxmWidBMBSLjjQsu9cSO6+XmRkcjY5sjUoOsmdV9oiN28IgduNBtlMmn+aq5cN9KP0zoCVsxe0ylNvCjyPyQs7qUXZ/JPS04ZIH0vlG8TIjxFQDGN+OCobanZlVfIbI2r5LB85ZiVWL5NqgaUoKu9awXh+aJYsPbya+GkN/BzziYV32U+QPEtK9BhsZTaVqNJpotUCOZVUJKPKSykVE+lTIGmhjVjkhKIEEUpCMKwj8/YLlWthG79MCe+xIq+z8Sk8FxwI8DrD/kxXP/L1tAw3L4zjts6AiR9KUnsVG+0EwN/118COQZ01fLZtbzc28WIIDygg=; 5:BiuiCNVUjaao5zgqPty31Fk8yCCBn0nSpRpCRDKuy64xlZTHLFDvlkAIVh3Gb5AMPsHxaCjEqNoRkeQxyZ0WehwVqVKGDNsaCBgFXRAhQwfJcq3+M0i+IZ7IeTjGpZxSkca+Suck5rT8ttB+SNN4ug==; 24:6oNkYj2n+J9Z1aZjdZP1nU5bgZmXmt9W5CYXB7qkKttKlqVvBF4kPWITfdg+zEWfg2J3mYL6zYqbRU4Bsa/ZSWQZOHxKglB1KjsxHKapDIc= SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0701MB1717; 7:mKG2XvLY+ZxEGPv0tzF1YAlvmIlTGHY1AQPt7/O98uBXOxLky7xnfsLe0CMt5e0CDK96EE6cdi8rJS865ZnQKFTHtVsQix1sbfOQyQ58yUL9Fv2XWXLorPJiL6sJ4Cna6Cr4qqs3BbyprcUjckSxv56KBM3GICONuzwIbr14GnMQiS1hjxCsRyZSKR1i2//kudF7aRZEw7NQIFSij6Gdbzcz9LrgapY8rpHMoX4U9v3DupQBqUgayAVKT1LTmy5RiHN+s5YLgarj++mQf3QRTdR3aA/bVC2ur0UXwqBd1SeRnstKGgG2tK092Ge7TNW4Dtl/HxqHUJBWFGEBpH//idWY9qj4But01s1AJrZzbYs= X-OriginatorOrg: caviumnetworks.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2016 23:43:35.1994 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0701MB1717 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eventdev: implement the northbound APIs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:43:39 -0000 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 > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce ; Van > > Haaren, Harry ; 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) > > > >