On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:45:07AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:17:04PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:11:03PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob > > > > > > > > So far, I have received constructive feedback from Intel, NXP and > > > > Linaro folks. > > > > Let me know, if anyone else interested in contributing to the > > > > definition of eventdev? > > > > > > > > If there are no major issues in proposed spec, then Cavium would like > > > > work on > > > > implementing and up-streaming the common code(lib/librte_eventdev/) and > > > > an associated HW driver.(Requested minor changes of v2 will be addressed > > > > in next version). > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > Two queries, > > > > 1) In SW implementation, Is their any connection between "struct > > rte_event_port_conf"'s dequeue_queue_depth and enqueue_queue_depth ? > > i.e it should be enqueue_queue_depth >= dequeue_queue_depth. Right ? > > Thought of adding the common checks in common layer. > > I think this is probably best left to the driver layers to enforce. For > us, such a restriction doesn't really make sense, though in many cases > that would be the usual setup. For accurate load balancing, the dequeue > queue depth would be small, and the burst size would probably equal the > queue depth, meaning the enqueue depth needs to be at least as big. > However, for better throughput, or in cases where all traffic is being > coalesced to a single core e.g. for transmit out a network port, there > is no need to keep the dequeue queue shallow and so it can be many times > the burst size, while the enqueue queue can be kept to 1-2 times the > burst size. >
OK > > > > 2)Any comments on follow item(section under ----) that needs improvement. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Abstract the differences in event QoS management with different > > priority schemes available in different HW or SW implementations with > > portable > > application workflow. > > > > Based on the feedback, there three different kinds of QoS support > > available in > > three different HW or SW implementations. > > 1) Priority associated with the event queue > > 2) Priority associated with each event enqueue > > (Same flow can have two different priority on two separate enqueue) > > 3) Priority associated with the flow(each flow has unique priority) > > > > In v2, The differences abstracted based on device capability > > (RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_QUEUE_QOS for the first scheme, > > RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS for the second and third scheme). > > This scheme would call for different application workflow for > > nontrivial QoS-enabled applications. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > After thinking a while, I think, RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS is a > > super-set.if so, the subset RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_QUEUE_QOS can be > > implemented with RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS. i.e We may not need two > > flags, Just one flag RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS is enough to fix > > portability issue with basic QoS enabled applications. > > > > i.e Introduce RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_EVENT_QOS as config option in device > > configure stage if application needs fine granularity on QoS per event > > enqueue.For trivial applications, configured > > rte_event_queue_conf->priority can be used as rte_event_enqueue(struct > > rte_event.priority) > > > So all implementations should support the concept of priority among > queues, and then there is optional support for event or flow based > prioritization. Is that a correct interpretation of what you propose? Yes. If you _can_ implement it and if possible in the system. > > /Bruce >
