On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:04 PM Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 28/10/2020 14:49, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Liang, Ma <liang.j...@intel.com> > > > > > 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. > > Ok I see, thanks for explanation. > From my perspective main disadvantage of such approach - > it can't be extended easily. > If/when will have an ability for core to sleep/wake-up on multiple events > (multiple addresses) will have to either rework that API again.
I think, we can enumerate the policies and pass the associated structures as input to the driver. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > >
