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 72CA1A04DD; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:15:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FE6CBCD; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:14:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com (mail-il1-f195.google.com [209.85.166.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9601ECBAB for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:14:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id x7so3535046ili.5 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AZ7N/+SblMexNlGoSP+Ju0pPF7ez57h9e757IjyBMJY=; b=ZQy8SSe11IWWPDt5a/lABITRRx/nKhK5UJfbXlMZ1eFTZ37HwM9nFCpunj/ZAU4Y17 w3kLb8P+h6tqXdsCRuRJt6agINoZX7dr9YmFYRHmlsbUMEAexR/9Q4Y13aP6YrUo0VOO nGMTzqGyP6uBJRWrFjYvJDl/vZgJq8CIPTfySP1IaU4KVZC0lLvj81PY8azWzKoWWWAV iLUipN7Yk+tYONHEEegJm+hnIFcKXor8zxH1uVRE3h2LYqE2ZpF5j6X+sNn/o+8Am0c6 XYI0Jtu8OvqF8Es+4IL+iQqx4P52pnmC5R9cCZwCTjiDZcrkhHTq81CSn54MtmCXEuY6 mxig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AZ7N/+SblMexNlGoSP+Ju0pPF7ez57h9e757IjyBMJY=; b=RD8wIbU9T8t0Y+rwg7DS5fIPA1UXC9kse1nU7ES1Mh6kMIri5z6C58mLF9RYMc4zqe 3JI+1HOnqtXYMivhQv2D6mfeuPawaMtaPURgBAXNiyzw8SDNCp24QrLAYPRkZneZbgMc PgUSGpShvHfReCIKfvdpIggGGykwU/YwM4qM5tLHdIdCFvPss0gRWAPEcpOEv4nAOwBK FPaiDn/52g67OAD4g0Zv49vs2I7o4L39EV/ubPsnOPFasbe3IsngPIfNtBvBRaZkl7Gn bSW9MwUDimJiQ/l0hJx9ESAO5BdjsQWkIHV6NlGOJQabOa6JxIp0HTMAk2SC1XTne3vl V3Zw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gGTcBUglOSY4gKYGZwLA3+rVaHc2skFd3FWSqTjXPntjMIN7M ybXKgW2HRE20eWBxo6zKSe67+5ncfozvZiMtZWQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgTmmIOyf4bwocwz31pwvUl0qghPimmNGsCFz9bmUpeZR3c1jNu+t6PVSnEBa8WAOgsZLaQzC8dC3uj2Flmas= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d3c1:: with SMTP id c1mr6219562ilh.271.1603898095953; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:14:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1603494392-7181-1-git-send-email-liang.j.ma@intel.com> <20201028133507.GC29706@sivswdev09.ir.intel.com> <2373759.1G5EZAqFcn@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:44:39 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Ma, Liang J" , dpdk-dev , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , "Wang, Haiyue" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Hunt, David" , Neil Horman , "McDaniel, Timothy" , "Eads, Gage" , Marcin Wojtas , Guy Tzalik , Ajit Khaparde , Harman Kalra , John Daley , "Wei Hu (Xavier" , Ziyang Xuan , "matan@nvidia.com" , Yong Wang , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/9] Add PMD power mgmt 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" On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > 28/10/2020 14:49, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Liang, Ma wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I think I addressed all of the questions in relation to V9. I don't think I can solve the issue of a generic API on my own. From the > > Community Call last week Jerin also said that a generic was investigated but that a single solution wasn't feasible. > > > > > > I think, From the architecture point of view, the specific > > > functionally of UMONITOR may not be abstracted. > > > But from the ethdev callback point of view, Can it be abstracted in > > > such a way that packet notification available through > > > checking interrupt status register or ring descriptor location, etc by > > > the driver. Use that callback as a notification mechanism rather > > > than defining a memory-based scheme that UMONITOR expects? or similar > > > thoughts on abstraction. > > I think there is probably some sort of misunderstanding. > This API is not about providing acync notification when next packet arrives. > This is about to putting core to sleep till some event (or timeout) happens. > From my perspective the closest analogy: cond_timedwait(). > So we need PMD to tell us what will be the address of the condition variable > we should sleep on. > > > I agree with Jerin. > > The ethdev API is the blocking problem. > > First problem: it is not well explained in doxygen. > > Second problem: it is probably not generic enough (if we understand it well) > > It is an address to sleep(/wakeup) on, plus expected value. > Honestly, I can't think-up of anything even more generic then that. > If you guys have something particular in mind - please share. Current PMD callback: typedef int (*eth_get_wake_addr_t)(void *rxq, volatile void **tail_desc_addr, + uint64_t *expected, uint64_t *mask, uint8_t *data_sz); Can we make it as typedef void (*core_sleep_t)(void *rxq) if we do such abstraction and "move the polling on memory by HW/CPU" to the driver using a helper function then I can think of abstracting in some way in all PMDs. Note: core_sleep_t can take some more arguments such as enumerated policy if something more needs to be pushed to the driver. Thoughts? > > > > > > > This API is experimental and other vendor support can be added as needed. If there are any other open issue let me know? > > > > Being experimental is not an excuse to throw something > > which is not satisfying. > > > > >