> -----Original Message----- > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 7:01 PM > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; mattias.ronnblom > <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Ray Kinsella > <m...@ashroe.eu>; > dev@dpdk.org; McDaniel, Timothy <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>; Hemant > Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; sachin.sax...@oss.nxp.com; > lian...@liangbit.com; Mccarthy, Peter <peter.mccar...@intel.com>; Carrillo, > Erik > G <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; > Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add enqueue depth for new event type > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com> > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 10:24 PM > > To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; > > mattias.ronnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com>; Thomas Monjalon > > <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Ray Kinsella > > <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org; McDaniel, Timothy > > <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>; Hemant Agrawal > > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; sachin.sax...@oss.nxp.com; > > lian...@liangbit.com; Mccarthy, Peter <peter.mccar...@intel.com>; > > Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S > > <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Jayatheerthan, Jay > > <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly > > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add enqueue depth for new event > > type > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 5:42 PM > > > To: mattias.ronnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com>; Thomas > > Monjalon > > > <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Ray Kinsella > > <m...@ashroe.eu>; > > > dev@dpdk.org; McDaniel, Timothy <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>; > > Hemant > > > Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; sachin.sax...@oss.nxp.com; > > > lian...@liangbit.com; Mccarthy, Peter <peter.mccar...@intel.com>; Van > > Haaren, > > > Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Carrillo, Erik G > > <erik.g.carri...@intel.com>; > > > Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Jayatheerthan, Jay > > > <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly > > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add enqueue depth for new event > > type > > > > <snip old conversation> > > > > > > >> If the underlying hardware has some limitations, > > > > >> why not let the driver loop until back pressure occurs? Then you can > > > > > > > > You didn't answer this question. Why not let the driver loop, until you > > > > for some reason or the other can't accept more events? > > > > > > CNXK event driver cannot accept forwarding(enq) more than one event > > that has > > > been dequeued. Enqueueing more than one event for > > forwarding/releasing > > > is a violation from HW perspective, this is currently announced by BURST > > capability. > > > But It can enqueue a burst if new events. > > > > Can't the driver just backpressure NEW events? that's what the event/sw > > driver > > does in order to limit "new" inflight events. App attempts to enq FWD/REL, > > no > > problem. App enqueues burst of NEW (and there's only N spaces) then the > > first N events pass, and the rest are returned to the application. > > > > Yes, driver can backpressure NEW events, in-fact that’s what we do today even > with burst size 1 as we need to check if target queue has space. > > The main problem is app needs to know that enqueue NEW supports > burst of events even when capability doesn't report BURST support.
If this is the "main problem", then 2 steps: 1) Let the driver report it supports BURST, and app will try to use it 2A) Let user enq bursts of FWD/REL, and accept only 1 (expecting app to retry with rest of burst, as is common) 2B) Put a retry loop inside the PMD, until actual backpressure is hit in HW, then return to App. > > Currently burst check is done as follows: > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c#n545 > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/app/test-eventdev/evt_common.h#n99 > > > > If you see the current example implementation we pick the worker based > > on > > > BURST capability for optimizing the enqueue/dequeue by providing a hint > > > to the driver layer. > > > > Please provide a link to the code? Others are not familiar with the CNXK > > driver, > > or the sample code you're referring to... > > > > See above. > > > > > > Although, we could live with aggregating the events at driver layer based > > on > > > queue. We would still require announce burst capability for new events > > > i.e. > > > changes to the info structure. > > > > As per above, I still don't see a reason why this HW optimization/limitation > > needs to be pushed to the application layer. Why can the driver not handle > > things by allowing/backpressure to the events it can/can't handle? > > > > We can handle aggregation in the driver i.e. the new API is not needed > although > doing so is inefficient, our synthetic benchmark shows ~20% drop. > > The main issue is that application needs to know that burst enqueue is > supported > for event with op_type as NEW even when capability doesn’t report BURST > support. > I think this can only be done if driver reports it via info structure. See above suggestion; the application should already be burst-capable (if it wants to be) and hence there's "nothing to do" at the app level, if the PMD is reworked to 1 and 2B? > > In this email thread[1] you've suggested reworking the rx_burst API with a > > flag to indicate "same destination". This still pushes the problem to the > > application, > > and exposes more HW/PMD specific options. This impl is *slightly* better > > because it > > wont' require new APIs for each mode, but also *breaks all existing apps*!? > > > > I'm just not understanding why the application needs to change, and why it > > cannot be optimized/handled in the driver layer. > > > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- > > 3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2022- > > 2DJuly_246717.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=E3SgYMjt > > KCMVsB-fmvgGV3o- > > g_fjLhk5Pupi9ijohpc&m=CyiCnnBdRFmd0maK3yHCkM7_3fDnVGGCeHteXAb > > I6DvehYrkk6BvyrMsV_NKsUGs&s=SbdMMotdrG_yzjCRgJc7h_Oq9Jtfl_8V06 > > QsyPqUfro&e= > > > > <snip old conversation>
