On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:38 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
<konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:57 PM Burakov, Anatoly
> > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 08-Oct-20 9:44 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Add two new power management intrinsics, and provide an implementation
> > > >>> in eal/x86 based on UMONITOR/UMWAIT instructions. The instructions
> > > >>> are implemented as raw byte opcodes because there is not yet
> > > >>> widespread
> > > >>> compiler support for these instructions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The power management instructions provide an architecture-specific
> > > >>> function to either wait until a specified TSC timestamp is reached, or
> > > >>> optionally wait until either a TSC timestamp is reached or a memory
> > > >>> location is written to. The monitor function also provides an optional
> > > >>> comparison, to avoid sleeping when the expected write has already
> > > >>> happened, and no more writes are expected.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> For more details, Please reference Intel SDM Volume 2.
> > > >>
> > > >> I really would like to see feedbacks from other arch maintainers.
> > > >> Unfortunately they were not Cc'ed.
> > > >
> > > > Shared the feedback from the arm64 perspective here. Yet to get a reply
> > > > on this.
> > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-September/181646.html
> > > >
> > > >> Also please mark the new functions as experimental.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Hi Jerin,
> >
> > Hi Anatoly,
> >
> > >
> > > > IMO, We must introduce some arch feature-capability _get_ scheme to
> > > tell
> > > > the consumer of this API is only supported on x86. Probably as
> > > functions[1]
> > > > or macro flags scheme and have a stub for the other architectures as
> > > the
> > > > API marked as generic ie rte_power_* not rte_x86_..
> > > >
> > > > This will help the consumer to create workers based on the
> > > instruction features
> > > > which can NOT be abstracted as a generic feature across the
> > > architectures.
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
> > >
> > > I mean, yes, we should have added stubs for other architectures, and we
> > > will add those in future revisions, but what does your proposed runtime
> > > check accomplish that cannot currently be done with CPUID flags?
> >
> >
> > RTE_CPUFLAG_WAITPKG flag definition is not available in other
> > architectures.
> > i.e RTE_CPUFLAG_WAITPKG defined in lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_cpuflags.h
> > and it is used in http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/79540/ as generic API.
> > I doubt http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/79540/ would compile on non-x86.
>
>
> I am agree with Jerin, that we need some generic way to
> figure-out does platform supports power_monitor() or not.
> Though not sure do we need to create a new feature-get framework here...
That's works too. Some means of generic probing is fine. Following
schemed needs
more documentation on that usage, as, it is not straight forward compare to
feature-get framework. Also, on the other thread, we are adding the
new instructions like
demote cacheline etc, maybe if the user wants to KNOW if the arch
supports it then
the feature-get framework is good.
If we think, there is no other usecase for generic arch feature-get
framework then
we can keep the below scheme else generic arch feature is better for
more forward
looking use cases.
> Might be just something like:
> rte_power_monitor(...) == -ENOTSUP
> be enough indication for that?
> So user can just do:
> if (rte_power_monitor(NULL, 0, 0, 0, 0) == -ENOTSUP) {
> /* not supported path */
> }
>
> To check is that feature supported or not.
>
> > >
> > > If you look at patch 1 [1], we added CPUID flags that the user can
> > > check, and in fact this is precisely what we do in patch 4 [2] before
> > > enabling the UMWAIT path. We could perhaps document this better and
> > > outline the dependency on the WAITPKG CPUID flag more explicitly, but
> > > otherwise i don't see how what you're proposing isn't already possible
> > > to do.
> > >
> > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/79539/
> > > [2] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/79540/ , function
> > > rte_power_pmd_mgmt_queue_enable()
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anatoly
