From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5030FA04DE; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:15:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A195C924; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:15:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE387C920 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:15:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6BB3E3; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= sqqwBp/onwWzLe0MTv+u26ntTF0vUknVKrl59aLGfAY=; b=hHwJru7d3ly7AuGU 9xbHI1WyViUEekILcQmGAmgGQJ1K6gSmPzeWAVdkdKq99v5wpoJLOBFFfEq6XvnT v06YHODqXXgv2GOmQiyTeom6brp4kEH5A62m43cktAgGPj0rOdmNCEeR0OduzTSq ewBxm2nFTnRsWLIzm8ALeIsXd1sMeCzkAlxPn65ApbUTtFsQV1rcNSX6J+Tb4sd7 dDRlWxoj2I05aLl3sT2PuVk/FOXrrnXam8PAuAEWZzkSF+uTvDAfhGsUb5yjs7PA jMqnTJXTQxkFKWLBnftQ8g7f+8CD/FNPc8VfKwXxkPKmUTWdefngZ0KGl1turVV+ uRnoIQ== 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=sqqwBp/onwWzLe0MTv+u26ntTF0vUknVKrl59aLGf AY=; b=O/OZ/qh9b9RKCQHQN48hG52oorFkS3bqAX5taxrxW3kU0uvTkAJMAuuKn oEjV8PPXrOyUlyOdwb+Hm3wR1mUb0rUUl3RLdK8IdR4OJA1Ur6d7KrKZ1QRyu6+7 LSh5MMtENwh56beT2n0nJFTUlhDAwsImbkIv2b3EX+tCslkEXzgEpuS5Qbz3oEUj T3Ob85Y5rFWjR44Rinz0xYWxuiEsZpMrsgp10qbK2sgcT37ogw9ZM3upmp2SBqQV dXqMp6rYryQStF3w2+mLtIZ2FzBt2Sf3UW1uXuADWmu18Uud7lkLKY7fGoadIqqs IN8mswWjYs7aMN/vWA36bp48rzGLQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrleehgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A4C333280063; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "McDaniel, Timothy" Cc: "'dev@dpdk.org'" , "Carrillo, Erik G" , "Eads, Gage" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "'jerinj@marvell.com'" , "'david.marchand@redhat.com'" Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:15:13 +0100 Message-ID: <5348013.yrGTY7C4b0@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1602958879-8558-2-git-send-email-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/23] Add DLB2 PMD 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/10/2020 12:58, McDaniel, Timothy: > From: McDaniel, Timothy > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 30/10/2020 10:43, Timothy McDaniel: > > > > - note that the code still uses its private byte-encoded versions of > > > > umonitor/umwait, rather than the new functions in the power > > > > patch that are built on top of those intrinsics. This is intentional. > > > > > > Why? Now these intrinsics are available in the main branch. > > > We should avoid duplicating such code. > > > > > > > > > > I had asked that the low level intrinsics (UMWAIT/UMONITOR) be split out so > > that DLB/DLB2 could use them instead of its own private byte-encoded versions, > > but instead we have these wrappers that call the low level intrinsics. Those > > wrappers > > introduce additional overhead that is not required for DLB/DLB2. I have a > > meeting with Ma Liang on Monday to discuss. > > I thought the ask of DLB was to just substitute the low level umwait/umonitor byte > encoded instructions DLB has defined privately with similar byte-encoded instructions defined in the power > patch. The power patch does not directly expose those, which is why I did not update DLB/DLB2. > The power patch does have the advantage of centralizing the race avoidance > logic, which is a good thing for any PMD that wishes to take advantage of umwait/umonitor. So you mean the overhead is a good thing? > Sorry for the confusion. I just misunderstood what was being asked of DLB in regard to switching over.. That being said, > I am willing to convert DLB/DLB2 to use rte_power_monitor(...) in a future patch-set. Why not now? Indeed there is a confusion and it looks like a lot of novlang to exit from the situation. We'll wait a clear decision with facts.