DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	'Jerin Jacob' <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
	"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Service lcores and Application lcores
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:18:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C34563@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2363216.DczB0HHKeo@xps>

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:29 AM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; 'Jerin Jacob' <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>; Wiles, Keith
> <keith.wiles@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores
> 
> 30/06/2017 10:52, Van Haaren, Harry:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > 29/06/2017 18:35, Van Haaren, Harry:
> > > > 3) The problem;
> > > >    If a service core runs the SW PMD schedule() function (option 2) *AND*
> > > >    the application lcore runs schedule() func (option 1), the result is that
> > > >    two threads are concurrently running a multi-thread unsafe function.
> > >
> > > Which function is multi-thread unsafe?
> >
> > With the current design, the service-callback does not have to be multi-thread safe.
> > For example, the eventdev SW PMD is not multi-thread safe.
> >
> > The service library handles serializing access to the service-callback if multiple cores
> > are mapped to that service. This keeps the atomic complexity in one place, and keeps
> > services as light-weight to implement as possible.
> >
> > (We could consider forcing all service-callbacks to be multi-thread safe by using
> atomics,
> > but we would not be able to optimize away the atomic cmpset if it is not required. This
> > feels heavy handed, and would cause useless atomic ops to execute.)
> 
> OK thank you for the detailed explanation.
> 
> > > Why the same function would be run by the service and by the scheduler?
> >
> > The same function can be run concurrently by the application, and a service core.
> > The root cause that this could happen is that an application can *think* it is the
> > only one running threads, but in reality one or more service-cores may be running
> > in the background.
> >
> > The service lcores and application lcores existence without knowledge of the others
> > behavior is the cause of concurrent running of the multi-thread unsafe service function.
> 
> That's the part I still don't understand.
> Why an application would run a function on its own core if it is already
> run as a service? Can we just have a check that the service API exists
> and that the service is running?


The point is that really it is an application / service core mis-match.
The application should never run a PMD that it knows also has a service core running it.

However, porting applications to the service-core API has an over-lap time where an
application on 17.05 will be required to call eg: rte_eventdev_schedule() itself, and
depending on startup EAL flags for service-cores, it may-or-may-not have to call schedule() manually.

This is pretty error prone, and mis-configuration would cause A) deadlock due to no CPU cycles, B) segfault due to two cores.

As per the other thread re service-lcores[1], removing rte_eventdev_schedule() from the API would force apps to use the service-core infrastructure for eventdev instead of the possibility of mis-match.


[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/069492.html

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-30 10:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-29 14:36 Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-29 16:35   ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 20:18     ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30  8:52       ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30  9:29         ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 10:18           ` Van Haaren, Harry [this message]
2017-06-30 10:38             ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 11:14               ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:04                 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:16                   ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-30  4:45   ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 10:00     ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 12:51       ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:08         ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:20           ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:24             ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:51               ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C34563@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).