Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 3/3] l3fwd-power: add interrupt-only mode

[Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:53:07PM +0530, Harman Kalra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 01:50:26PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > On 30-May-20 11:02 AM, Harman Kalra wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 03:19:45PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > > > External Email
> > > > 
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > On 29-May-20 2:19 PM, Harman Kalra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > >    	if (ret < 0)
> > > > > >    		rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid L3FWD parameters\n");
> > > > > > -	if (app_mode != APP_MODE_TELEMETRY && init_power_library())
> > > > > > +	if (app_mode == APP_MODE_DEFAULT)
> > > > > > +		app_mode = APP_MODE_LEGACY;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	/* only legacy and empty poll mode rely on power library */
> > > > > > +	if ((app_mode == APP_MODE_LEGACY || app_mode == APP_MODE_EMPTY_POLL) &&
> > > > > > +			init_power_library())
> > > > > >    		rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "init_power_library failed\n");
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Rather than just exiting from here can we have a else condition to
> > > > > automatically enter into the "interrupt only" mode.
> > > > > Please correct me if I am missing something.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your review. I don't think silently proceeding is a good idea. If
> > > > the user wants interrupt-only mode, they should request it. Silently falling
> > > > back to interrupt-only mode will create an illusion of successful
> > > > initialization and set the wrong expectation for how the application will
> > > > behave.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the explanation which even I also believe is logically perfect.
> > > 
> > > But since l3fwd-power is an old application and has many users around
> > > which are currently using this app in interrupt only mode without giving
> > > an extra argument. But suddenly they will start getting failure messages with
> > > the new patchset.
> > > 
> > > My only intent with else condition was backward compatibility.
> > > Or may be we can have more descriptive failure message, something like
> > > "init_power_library failed, check manual for other modes".
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Harman
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > I think we can compormise on an informative log message suggesting to use
> > interrupt mode. I'm not keen on reverting to previous buggy behavior :)
> > 
> Hi
> 
> I am not insisting to revert to previous behavior, I am just trying to
> highlight some probable issues that many users might face as its an old
> application.
> Since many arm based soc might not be supporting frequency scaling, can
> we add the following check as soon as the application starts, probe the
> platform if it supports frequency scaling, if not automatically set the
> mode to interrupt mode, something like:
> if (access("/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor",
> 			F_OK))
> 	app_mode = APP_MODE_INTERRUPT;

Sorry, no direct check in application but we can introduce a new API in
power library:
   bool rte_is_freq_scaling() {
	   return  access("/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor",
			   F_OK);
   }

and in the application we can use "rte_is_freq_scaling()" at the start.

> 
> 
> Thanks
> Harman
> 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Anatoly
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thanks,
> > Anatoly