Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] app/testpmd: add GPU memory option for mbuf pools

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

 te

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:20 PM Elena Agostini <eagostini@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:09 PM Elena Agostini <eagostini@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:04:59 +0000
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> This patch introduces GPU memory in testpmd through the gpudev library.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Testpmd can be used for network benchmarks when using GPU memory
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> instead of regular CPU memory to send and receive packets.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> This option is currently limited to iofwd engine to ensure
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> no workload is applied on packets not accessible from the CPU.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> The options chose is --mbuf-size so buffer split feature across
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> different mempools can be enabled.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Elena Agostini <eagostini@nvidia.com>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>> Won't this create a hard dependency of test-pmd on gpudev?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>> I thought gpudev was supposed to be optional
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>> Sure, let me submit another patch to make it optional
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> Why to add yet another compile time macro everywhere in testpmd and
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> make hard to maintain?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> Adding iofwd kind of code is very simple to add test/test-gpudev and
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> all GPU specific options
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> can be added in test-gpudev. It also helps to review the patches as
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> test cases focus on
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>> each device class.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >> Test-gpudev is standalone unit test to ensure gpudev functions work correctly.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >> In testpmd instead, there is a connection between gpudev and the network.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > I understand that. We had the same case with eventdev, where it needs to
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > work with network. Testpmd is already complicated, IMO, we should
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > focus only ethdev
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > test cases on testpmd, test-gpudev can use ethdev API to enable
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > networking requirements for gpudev.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > +1
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > +1
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Testpmd already manages different type of memories for mempools.
>
> > >
>
> > > gpudev is just another type of memory, there is nothing more than that.
>
> >
>
> > Let take this example:
>
> > 1) New code changes
>
> >
>
>  > app/test-pmd/cmdline.c    |  32 +++++++-
>
> > app/test-pmd/config.c     |   4 +-
>
> > app/test-pmd/icmpecho.c   |   2 +-
>
> > app/test-pmd/meson.build  |   2 +-
>
> > app/test-pmd/parameters.c |  15 +++-
>
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.c    | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.h    |  16 +++-
>
> > 7 files changed, 217 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> >
>
> > 2) Good amount of code need to go through condition compilation as
>
> > gpudev is optional that make
>
> > testpmd further ugly.
>
> >
>
> > 3) It introduces new memtype, now
>
> >
>
> > +enum mbuf_mem_type {
>
> > + MBUF_MEM_CPU,
>
> > + MBUF_MEM_GPU
>
> > +};
>
> >
>
> > The question largely, why testpmd need to pollute for this, testpmd,
>
> > we are using for testing ethdev device class.
>
> > All we are saying is to enable this use case in test-gpudev so that it
>
> > focuses on GPU specific, Whoever is not
>
> > interested in specific libraries do not even need to review the testpmd patches.
>
>
>
> I understand your point. I don’t understand why this testpmd patch is there since Oct 29 but
>
> I'm receiving reviews only few days before rc4 when I have a limited amount of time to get new code accepted.

I understand that pain. Welcome to DPDK, we have all gone through this
review issue one or another way.


>
>
>
> I can provide a gpudev + ethdev example by end of today (I'd like to keep test-gpudev as it is to test gpudev API standalone).
>
> Is there any chance this new example will be reviewed and eventually accepted in DPDK 21.11?

Why a new example? I don't have any issues in updating app/test-gpudev/.