From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
'Jerin Jacob' <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Service lcores and Application lcores
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:57:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170629155707.GA15724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C33E88@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:36:04PM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> The recently posted service cores patchset[1], introduces service lcores to run services for DPDK applications. Services are just an ordinary function for eg: eventdev scheduling, NIC RX, statistics and monitoring, etc. A service is just a callback function, which a core invokes. An atomic ensures that services that are
> non-multi-thread-safe are never concurrently invoked.
>
> The topic of discussion in this thread is how we can ensure that application lcores do not interfere with service cores. I have a solution described below, opinions welcome.
>
>
> Regards, -Harry
>
>
> PS: This discussion extends that in the ML thread here[2], participants of that thread added to CC.
>
> [1] Service Cores v2 patchset http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/bundle/hvanhaar/service_cores_v2/
> [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/069290.html
>
>
> ________________________
>
>
>
> A proposal for Eventdev, to ensure Service lcores and Application lcores play nice;
>
> 1) Application lcores must not directly call rte_eventdev_schedule()
> 2A) Service cores are the proper method to run services
> 2B) If an application insists on running a service "manually" on an app lcore, we provide a function for that:
> rte_service_run_from_app_lcore(struct service *srv);
>
> The above function would allow a pesky app to run services on its own (non-service core) lcores, but
> does so through the service-core framework, allowing the service-library atomic to keep access serialized as required for non-multi-thread-safe services.
>
> The above solution maintains the option of running the eventdev PMD as now (single-core dedicated to a single service), while providing correct serialization by using the rte_service_run_from_app_lcore() function. Given the atomic is only used when required (multiple cores mapped to the service) there should be no performance delta.
>
> Given that the application should not invoke rte_eventdev_schedule(), we could even consider removing it from the Eventdev API. A PMD that requires cycles registers a service, and an application can use a service core or the run_from_app_lcore() function if it wishes to invoke that service on an application owned lcore.
>
>
> Opinions?
I would be in favour of this proposal, except for the proposed name for
the new function. It would be useful for an app to be able to "adopt" a
service into it's main loop if so desired. If we do this, I think I'd
also support the removal of a dedicated schedule call from the eventdev
API, or alternatively, if it is needed by other PMDs, leave it as a
no-op in the sw PMD in favour of the service-cores managed function.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-29 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-29 14:36 Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-29 16:35 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 20:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 8:52 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 9:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 10:18 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 10:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 11:14 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:04 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:16 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:57 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2017-06-30 4:45 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 10:00 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 12:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:08 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:20 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:24 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=20170629155707.GA15724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--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).