On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:14 PM Liang, Ma <liang.j...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 21:06, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:00 PM Liang, Ma <liang.j...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Oct 20:44, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:27 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) > > > How about void (*eth_core_sleep_helper_t)(void *rxq, enum scheme, void > > > *paramter) > > > by this way, PMD can cast the parameter accorind to the scheme. > > > e.g. if scheme MEM_MONITOR then cast to umwait way. > > > however, this will introduce another problem. > > > we need add PMD query callback to figure out if PMD support this scheme. > > > > I thought scheme/policy something that "application cares" like below > > not arch specifics > > 1) wakeup up on first packet, > > 2) wake me up on first packet or timeout 100 us etc > I need clarify about current design a bit. the purposed API just get target > address. > the API itself(include the PMD callback) will not demand the processor to > idle/sleep. > we use the post rx callback to do that. for ethdev layer, this API only is > used to > fetch target address from PMD, which make minmal impact to existing code.
I understand that. But if we move that logic to common code in ethdev as a set of internal PMD helper functions(Helper functions for class of devices and/or arch) then it should be possible. Right? I do understand that, It will call for some rework in the code. I will leave up to ethdev maintainers on specifics. > > > Yes. We can have query on type of the policies supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
