From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC153A04C0;
	Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:03:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A991D6F6;
	Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:03:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ED51D6F4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:03:35 +0200 (CEST)
IronPort-SDR: 5dHCvNl6BN3lh8eKgcpKfkke2Y48ocfXqbHIi8jh57XVo5G/UWuZ7Su7TdmRfOmE6aiXefAyuS
 lRGmMUjgz2OQ==
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9758"; a="149804355"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,317,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="149804355"
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 29 Sep 2020 02:03:32 -0700
IronPort-SDR: iz+aaFSBPOb1TUn8ZVpTDz8h62X5FnBj83tTFrspGKU8v26pEGf8L5/88a+z0EjipOEP0OcnHY
 3cOrp/h8Jycw==
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,317,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="324607166"
Received: from orsmsx606.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.229.19])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2020 02:03:32 -0700
Received: from orsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.229.14) by
 ORSMSX606.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.229.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:03:32 -0700
Received: from ORSEDG601.ED.cps.intel.com (10.7.248.6) by
 orsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.229.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5
 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:03:32 -0700
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.38.56) by
 edgegateway.intel.com (134.134.137.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:03:31 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none;
 b=cLQfREya8PVxtG8zsXxa9I+Nxte8jIb3pJ/5ezRHl8PGT8Iy3rRAGBmBY1T0pdcVFsSRVPAM1cqawFzU+vxcz1Q+/VisNUKWyA8sjU9HY7n8xRyqsewW7+xuypGUsEkfNHeV6l51okTNEFFo7JGyH4lIlnnzynsGTdMlCwpeQEdU39X+a9YTm5c9YiuilHr70xmUNVwwj+FQAk1ik5b1Gdvll6fyvJbt1Hy3aoqOpulK4jv7uM9cerndj4AtqIcNIlr8JsJKqIE3lov9g2cBAstgEjJRx6JKXUfoIPFByZV7unMt5t9TLKJnijWAHvk+u8+OgRHoUNOiyghgrptHcw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; 
 s=arcselector9901;
 h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
 bh=BBgyd0DJ7N6oI9mUyA6R0ycuKvTD9k+NOgQlkTCwRmU=;
 b=iewU2snWndbSbImJJec3m12HhFzCSwqGmrueuXPgO1BmpKINpw7rpGsFJoXE48wcHUGbi/m8sTyfDtXkCVsrynGK1r9qkT+/uP+nPGh72junCTfFm7e80rs+1ygQJQ4eNKB2PfV8WNSOnrs9tucyJDI72POxsmCVvzm145k3xixfa9h1MgRarBf+oZQR6dC3L2Hubo4XsnNZUebGvuTcYj+n75fG2BFe2ZpjcpA6ahdnGLzqxtQvEMFfLwJuWXAMjN3fdOUWjZwztk/5F/3rtKkEOQCyG72l7AFqNkqLd2eAAhBePnGnvboXuehJz04Nme2WOwoS9M/bQccCuNklCQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass
 smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=intel.com;
 dkim=pass header.d=intel.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel.onmicrosoft.com; 
 s=selector2-intel-onmicrosoft-com;
 h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
 bh=BBgyd0DJ7N6oI9mUyA6R0ycuKvTD9k+NOgQlkTCwRmU=;
 b=uTWDn6jB+9oqJ2srLRasrmb3scqd/KCi8ewfzFa0SQD+VAThb9ezL12cuPGa6wMjokkCH0T1Kw9LDDF4zWxWbbu6tr1qqjGTRVA6E8Or/XAevOTXJGuU8Qqg82M6Pf/JW2GptkOkMnvSZxrMqo+2qK9huyvagf8cdhkasjay+RQ=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:7f::26)
 by BYAPR11MB2677.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:cd::32)
 with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
 cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.28; Tue, 29 Sep
 2020 09:03:27 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::f5a4:3f6b:ade3:296b]) by BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::f5a4:3f6b:ade3:296b%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3412.026; Tue, 29 Sep 2020
 09:03:27 +0000
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>, "Gujjar, Abhinandan
 S" <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Doherty,
 Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>
CC: "jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>, "Akhil.goyal@nxp.com"
 <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vangati@intel.com>, nd
 <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [v2 1/2] cryptodev: support enqueue callback functions
Thread-Index: AQHWhsTbY+pAzzKww0euN2orABmUValrRWzAgAAl9gCAAW0pMIAGJnUAgAAH/lCAAp3uAIAAgn/ggADASgCAASzNQIAHHMUAgAA/FzA=
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:03:27 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB3301C7055A8032649A55A6DA9A320@BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1599549024-195051-1-git-send-email-abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>
 <BYAPR11MB3301233DDE876BF3D19463909A210@BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <MWHPR11MB183809AE6FF88ED2F2A6C252E8210@MWHPR11MB1838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <BYAPR11MB3301D3074A678BB10B1FE7AF9A3E0@BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <MWHPR11MB1838DAEE401C006C913238C9E83A0@MWHPR11MB1838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <BYAPR11MB3301D8480B010A152FB134159A3A0@BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <DBAPR08MB581470913C8FEE2C30FFB28698380@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <DM6PR11MB330896B2863AEA0F2D24B4B39A380@DM6PR11MB3308.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <DBAPR08MB581492EEC7314057462689C298380@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <BYAPR11MB3301FFC21A26E5A37A9921219A390@BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <DBAPR08MB581477EA5ADBB7D16BCCAC9498320@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR08MB581477EA5ADBB7D16BCCAC9498320@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-reaction: no-action
dlp-version: 11.5.1.3
authentication-results: arm.com; dkim=none (message not signed)
 header.d=none;arm.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=intel.com;
x-originating-ip: [46.7.39.127]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e6a9f642-9360-4cdf-f345-08d864568745
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2677:
x-ld-processed: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d,ExtAddr
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2677EA68FDE4A40F1075BD929A320@BYAPR11MB2677.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DIr508a5GA9CxzX5dJFYsOOeyGIdqF7DOILaWqTK4/9U3lar57OUwDkYFaOI199SOU/pL/hrUe/VAcKtlVJOCQ+9pZkHRVpyY3y2PlkuJHA9jOBOlxpE13A9n6OkUanRA1p8PD6BS+yiTe1y1p3qbvrT2gZDNgkvQXyhj/JNVYBfyzug9q8rzkKbROQcIy8GnDI0XHTPNKHW3kJwLr2oSHH/evBkYHg4sIrQu3t8RUpHxpsrNfVXKTT6lycIDyEUtcXCx9jDvaMR66Iw1iKCIXMby0CmFIvaVKgmH/l2Qnc2vTBQnHjRd1UV7Cx+chqMmyGY6pPCbU6eL3+W2xcabBDd97FvmtaX7Pf7dMiOc/Ezh4890Z/N/xJxAKA/eanz4ZGPA51VdA4QimXYIfvxk2buWFforAqlSnAHmSb7Tj+hjN5aymxvYZvIMJDtIrA1vEIygMb1ZHRAwXPPIm85Fg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:;
 IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE;
 SFS:(4636009)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(6636002)(6506007)(26005)(186003)(9686003)(55016002)(66946007)(76116006)(66446008)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(52536014)(8676002)(71200400001)(33656002)(478600001)(966005)(7696005)(8936002)(86362001)(4326008)(54906003)(83380400001)(316002)(5660300002)(30864003)(2906002)(110136005);
 DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; 
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB3301.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e6a9f642-9360-4cdf-f345-08d864568745
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Sep 2020 09:03:27.0599 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: KV1GzEJO0BVr37+GOb3co26YwK3LVHXurdC+GaK9AsteMmJDCAzb0RS+YtxPbU5W2OESHrCrUvimDFos3WdnBCcYPEu3SYt8czpGumQNvOg=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2677
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [v2 1/2] cryptodev: support enqueue callback
	functions
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>


>=20
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef RTE_CRYPTODEV_CALLBACKS int
> > > > > > > > > > > +rte_cryptodev_rcu_qsbr_add(uint8_t dev_id, struct
> > > > > > > > > > > +rte_rcu_qsbr
> > > > > > > > > > > +*qsbr) {
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +	struct rte_cryptodev *dev;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +	if (!rte_cryptodev_pmd_is_valid_dev(dev_id)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > +		CDEV_LOG_ERR("Invalid dev_id=3D%" PRIu8,
> > dev_id);
> > > > > > > > > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +	dev =3D &rte_crypto_devices[dev_id];
> > > > > > > > > > > +	dev->qsbr =3D qsbr;
> > > > > > > > > > > +	return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So if I understand your patch correctly you propose a
> > > > > > > > > > new working model for
> > > > > > > > > > crypto-devs:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Control-plane has to allocate/setup rcu_qsbr and do
> > > > > > > > > > rte_cryptodev_rcu_qsbr_add().
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Data-plane has somehow to obtain pointer to that
> > > > > > > > > > rcu_qsbr and wrap
> > > > > > > > > > cryptodev_enqueue()
> > > > > > > > > >    with rcu_qsbr_quiescent()  or
> > > > rcu_qsbr_online()/rcu_qsbr_offline().
> > > > > > > > > Yes. I think, it is not a new model. It is same as RCU
> > > > > > > > > integration with
> > > > > > LPM.
> > > > > > > > > Please refer: https://patches.dpdk.org/cover/73673/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am talking about new working model for crypto-dev
> > > > enqueue/dequeue.
> > > > > > > > As I said above now it becomes data-plane thread responsibi=
lity to:
> > > > > > > >  -somehow to obtain pointer to that rcu_qsbr for each
> > > > > > > > cryptodev it is
> > > > > > using.
> > > > > > > >  -call rcu sync functions (quiescent/online/offline) on a r=
egular
> > basis.
> > > > > > > It is not on regular basis. When data plane comes up, they re=
port
> > online.
> > > > > > > They report quiescent when they are done with critical sectio=
n
> > > > > > > or shared
> > > > > > structure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that, but it means all existing apps have to be
> > > > > > changed that
> > > > way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All though, there is some dataplane changes involved here, I
> > > > > > > don't think, it
> > > > > > is major.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still think our goal here should be to make no visible change=
s
> > > > > > to the dataplane.
> > > > > > I.E. all necessary data-plane changes need to be hidden inside
> > > > > > CB invocation part.
> > > > > Please note that this is being implemented using the memory
> > > > > reclamation framework documented at
> > > > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rcu_lib.html#resource-recl=
a
> > > > > mati
> > > > > on-framework-for-dpdk
> > > > >
> > > > > While using RCU there are couple of trade-offs that applications
> > > > > have to
> > > > consider:
> > > > > 1) Performance - reporting the quiescent state too often results
> > > > > in performance impact on data plane
> > > > > 2) Amount of outstanding memory to reclaim - reporting less often
> > > > > results in more outstanding memory to reclaim
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence, the quiescent state reporting is left to the application.
> > > > > The application decides how often it reports the quiescent state
> > > > > and has control
> > > > over the data plane performance and the outstanding memory to recla=
im.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you say "new working model for crypto-dev enqueue/dequeue",
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) are you comparing these with existing crypto-dev
> > > > > enqueue/dequeue
> > > > APIs? If yes, these are new APIs, it is not breaking anything.
> > > > > 2) are you comparing these with existing call back functions in
> > > > > ethdev enqueue/dequeue APIs? If yes, agree that this is a new
> > > > > model. But, it is
> > > > possible to support what ethdev supports along with the RCU method
> > > > used in this patch.
> > > >
> > > > What I am talking about:
> > > >
> > > > Existing cryptodev enqueue/dequeue model doesn't require for the
> > > > user to manage any RCU QSBR state manually.
> > > > I believe that addition of ability to add/remove enqueue/dequeue
> > > > callbacks shouldn't change existing working model.
> > > > I think that adding/removing such callbacks has to be opaque to the
> > > > user DP code and shouldn't require user to change it. Same as we
> > > > have now for ethdev callback implementation.
> > > The ethdev callback implementation conveniently leaves the problem of
> > freeing memory to the user to resolve, it does not handle the issue.
> > > Hence, it "looks" to be opaque to the DP code. However, if the
> > > application has to implement a safe way to free the call back memory,=
 its
> > DP is affected based on call backs are being used or not.
> >
> > Yes, I think that's big drawback in initial ethdev callback implementat=
ion - it
> > simply ignores DP/CP sync problem completely.
> > Though I think it is possible to have both here:
> >  keep callback "opaque" to DP code and provide some sync mechanism
> > between DP/CP.
> > Hopefully one day we can fix ethdev callbacks too.
> The solution we develop can be used in ethdev too.
>=20
> >
> > > > I think that forcing DP code to be aware that callbacks are present
> > > > or not and to modify its behaviour depending on that nearly voids
> > > > the purpose of having callbacks at all.
> > > > In that case DP can just invoke callback function directly from it'=
s
> > codepath .
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note that now data-plane thread would have to do that alway=
s
> > > > > > > > - even if there are now callbacks installed for that
> > > > > > > > cryptodev queue
> > > > right now.
> > > > > > > > All that changes behaviour of existing apps and I presume
> > > > > > > > would reduce adoption of  that fature.
> > > > > If I understand this correct, you are talking about a case where
> > > > > in the application might be registering/unregistering multiple
> > > > > times during its lifetime. In this case, yes, the application
> > > > > might be reporting the
> > > > quiescent state even when it has not registered the call backs. But=
,
> > > > it has the flexibility to not report it if it implements additional=
 logic.
> > > > > Note that we are assuming that the application has to report
> > > > > quiescent state only for using callback functions. Most probably
> > > > > the application has
> > > > other requirements to use RCU.
> > > > > Why not support what is done for ethdev call back functions along
> > > > > with
> > > > providing RCU method?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > There is always trade off involved!
> > > > > > > In the previous patch, you suggested that some lazy app may
> > > > > > > not free up the memory allocated by add cb. For such apps,
> > > > > > > this patch has sync mechanism with some additional cost of CP=
 & DP
> > changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sigh, it is not about laziness of the app.
> > > > > > The problem with current ethedev cb mechanism and yours V1
> > > > > > (which was just a clone of it) - CP doesn't know when it is saf=
e
> > > > > > after CB removal to free related memory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still think all this callback mechanism should be totally
> > > > > > > > opaque to data-plane threads - user shouldn't change his ap=
p
> > > > > > > > code depending on would some enqueue/dequeue callbacks be
> > > > installed or not.
> > > > > > > I am not sure, how that can be implemented with existing RCU
> > design.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said below the simplest way - with calling rcu
> > > > > > onine/offline inside CB invocation block.
> > > > > > That's why I asked you - did you try that approach and what is
> > > > > > the perf numbers?
> > > > > > I presume with no callbacks installed the perf change should be
> > > > > > nearly
> > > > zero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Honnappa Nagarahalli, Do you have any suggestions?
> > > > > Reporting quiescent state in the call back functions has several
> > > > disadvantages:
> > > > > 1) it will have performance impacts and the impacts will increase
> > > > > as the
> > > > number of data plane threads increase.
> > > > > 2) It will require additional configuration parameters to control
> > > > > how often the quiescent state is reported to control the performa=
nce
> > impact.
> > > > > 3) Does not take advantage of the fact that most probably the
> > > > > application is using RCU already
> > > > > 4) There are few difficulties as well, please see below.
> > > >
> > > > I suggested Abhinandan to use RCU library because it is already
> > > > there, and I thought it would be good not to re-implement the wheel=
.
> > > > Though if you feel librte_rcu doesn't match that task - fine, let's
> > > > do it without librte_rcu.
> > > > After all, what we need here - just an atomic ref count per queue
> > > > that we are going to increment at entering and leaving list of
> > > > callbacks inside enqueue/dequeue.
> > > Ok, looks like I missed the point that a queue is used by a single da=
ta plane
> > thread.
> > > Along with ref count increment you need the memory orderings to avoid
> > race conditions. These will be the same ones used in RCU.
> > > On the control plane, you need to read this counter and poll for the
> > counter updates. All this is same cost as in RCU.
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> > > To control the cost, you
> > > will have to control the rate of quiescent state reporting and might =
have to
> > expose this as a configuration parameter.
> > >
> > > The other important information you have to consider is if the thread
> > > is making any blocking calls, which may be in some other library. The
> > > thread is supposed to call rcu_qsbr_thread_offline API before calling=
 a
> > blocking call. This allows the RCU to know that this particular thread =
will not
> > report quiescent state. The cryptodev library might not have that infor=
mation.
> > >
> > > If you want to go ahead with this design, you can still use RCU with
> > > single thread configuration (like you have mentioned below) and hide =
the
> > details from the application.
> >
> > Yes,  same thought here -  use rcu_qsbr online/offline for DP part and =
hide
> > actual sync details inside callback code.
> We can give it a try. If we can have the performance numbers, we can deci=
de about how to control how often these APIs are called on the
> data plane.

To avoid misunderstanding: I am talking about calling online/offline
with every cryptodev_enqueue() traversal over CB list.

>=20
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That seems quite a big change and I don't think it is
> > > > > > > > > > acceptable for most users.
> > > > > > > > > > From my perspective adding/installing call-backs to the
> > > > > > > > > > dev has to be opaque to the data-plane code.
> > > > > > > > > > Also note that different callbacks can be installed by
> > > > > > > > > > different entities (libs) and might have no idea about =
each
> > other.
> > > > > > > > > > That's why I thought it would be better to make all thi=
s
> > > > > > > > > > RCU stuff internal inside cryptodev:
> > > > > > > > > >     hide all this rcu_qsbr allocation/setup inside
> > > > > > > > > > cryptod somehow to
> > > > > > > > obtain pointer to that rcu_qsbr ev init/queue setup
> > > > > > > > > >     invoke rcu_qsbr_online()/rcu_qsbr_offline() inside
> > > > > > > > cryptodev_enqueue().
> > > > > This will bring in the application related information such as th=
e
> > > > > thread ID
> > > > into the library.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it would.
> > > > Cryptodev enqueue/dequeue functions are not supposed to be thread
> > > > safe (same as rx/tx burst).
> > > > So we can always use RCU with just one thread(thread_id =3D 0).
> > > Agree, the memory that needs to be freed is accessed by a single thre=
ad
> > on the data plane. RCU with one thread would suffice.
> > >
> > > > But as I said above - if you feel RCU lib is an overhead here,
> > > > that's fine - I think it would be easy enough to do without librte_=
rcu.
> > > >
> > > > > If the same API calls are being made from multiple data plane
> > > > > threads, you need a way to configure that information to the
> > > > > library. So, it is better to leave those details for the applicat=
ion to handle.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have already tried exploring above stuffs. There are to=
o
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > constraints.
> > > > > > > > > The changes don't fit in, as per RCU design.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm could you be more specific here - what constraints are
> > > > > > > > you referring to?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moreover, having rcu api under enqueue_burst() will affec=
t
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > performance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It most likely will. Though my expectation it will affect
> > > > > > > > performance only when some callbacks are installed. My
> > > > > > > > thought
> > > > here:
> > > > > > > > callback function by itself will affect cryptdev_enqueue
> > > > > > > > performance anyway,
> > > > > > > With existing callback design, I have measured the
> > > > > > > performance(with
> > > > > > crypto perf test) on xeon.
> > > > > > > It was almost negligible and same was shared with Declan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am asking about different thing: did you try alternate
> > > > > > approach I described, that wouldn't require changes in the user=
 data-
> > plane code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is one of the reasons, I didn't want to add to many
> > > > > > > stuffs in to the
> > > > > > callback.
> > > > > > > The best part of existing design is crypto lib is not much mo=
dified.
> > > > > > > The changes are either pushed to CP or DP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so adding extra overhead for sync is probably ok here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that extra overhead when callbacks are present is
> > > > > > expected and probably acceptable.
> > > > > > Changes in the upper-layer data-plane code - probably not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Though for situation when no callbacks are installed -
> > > > > > > > perfomance should be left unaffected (or impact should be a=
s
> > > > > > > > small
> > > > as possible).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The changes are more on control plane side, which is one =
time.
> > > > > > > > > The data plane changes are minimal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still think upper layer data-plane code should stay
> > > > > > > > unaffected (zero changes).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>