From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C6C1B487 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C362212F; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:33:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=1jv17x9TsmNSN6kySeExlG2oEV WZ7J4EmhXzATOsTeU=; b=VhIqlrtez4ThVVPcPo0T+5ZpOE/6exwl9LLTwjATkh oKvhSWHtnf/0hO1AaH+lD3/iR93mhxXUIynQE4iNrvFpdVsciPihy9t8Ga5KRmh8 Z0ap76MiMLwVPF1BNYddVgj4KQDeu50HmP2Dlgfp5ZZd07dzzOGuZSopzHY92Q1b s= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=1jv17x 9TsmNSN6kySeExlG2oEVWZ7J4EmhXzATOsTeU=; b=v07lczBhV4x/OnM3M8onmV hLSgHHR58HV+doB1vJDbcnYNPQ7vRkLTDMH/ZT+nw39IaqSVwYlS+SiLWTRnxBDG SCNlgwsKWys+cSgtA2jT7n6VCILDdb84R9yTcQqjjZSfs61TQEXXzXAjJqP9zYci w7Rot5leB7freaPKzaJrb7kISZ7Kq55IKm0xVAXVpVT67hE0BVXN9quAOkSRk4F4 +qbrdr3Q6V0d58nGCFdwvV2coZhtC1FoiWSVQgkSw2XUwB1VuQ+XQ6RKBN/VYH/f wb0Y1A/yjHs1Ptao9+Lpe7drLgRfyLVGUwnWgZFnDIhteGnjSypZu+EHTpRZTmSA == X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9DBFCE414A; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:33:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Hunt, David" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:33:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4106595.MIdGIlFmsH@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20180621132414.39047-2-david.hunt@intel.com> <2730584.abn78hPeQH@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [0/9] examples/vm_power: 100% Busy Polling X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:33:11 -0000 13/07/2018 10:31, Hunt, David: > Hi Thomas, > > On 12/7/2018 8:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/06/2018 11:23, David Hunt: > >> This patch set adds the capability to do out-of-band power > >> monitoring on a system. It uses a thread to monitor the branch > >> counters in the targeted cores, and calculates the branch ratio > >> if the running code. > >> > >> If the branch ratop is low (0.01), then > >> the code is most likely running in a tight poll loop and doing > >> nothing, i.e. receiving no packets. In this case we scale down > >> the frequency of that core. > >> > >> If the branch ratio is higher (>0.01), then it is likely that > >> the code is receiving and processing packets. In this case, we > >> scale up the frequency of that core. > >> > >> The cpu counters are read via /dev/cpu/x/msr, so requires the > >> msr kernel module to be loaded. Because this method is used, > >> the patch set is implemented with one file for x86 systems, and > >> another for non-x86 systems, with conditional compilation in > >> the Makefile. The non-x86 functions are stubs, and do not > >> currently implement any functionality. > >> > >> The vm_power_manager app has been modified to take a new parameter > >> --core-list or -l > >> which takes a list of cores in a comma-separated list format, > >> e.g. 1,3,5-7,9, which resolvest to a core list of 1,3,5,6,7,9 > >> These cores will then be enabled for oob monitoring. When the > >> OOB monitoring thread starts, it reads the branch hits/miss > >> counters of each monitored core, and scales up/down accordingly. > > It looks to be a feature which could be integrated in DPDK libs. > > Why choosing to implement it fully in an example? > > I needed to set up a thread that looped tightly (~100uS interval) and > run it on it's > own core. From what I have seen in other cases, it is usually the > application that > allocates cores and decides what to run on them. I did think about putting > some of it in a library, but for this case I thought it made more sense > to keep > it purely as a sample app. I feel some code deserves to be in a library. For instance, having different implementations per CPU is a good reason to make a library.