On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:49 PM
> <snip>
> >
> > Hi Community,
> >
> > 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,
>
> I've been looking at the eventdev API from a use-case point of view, and I'm
> unclear on a how the API caters for two uses. I have simplified these as much
> as possible, think of them as a theoretical unit-test for the API :)
>
>
> Fragmentation:
> 1. Dequeue 8 packets
> 2. Process 2 packets
> 3. Processing 3rd, this packet needs fragmentation into two packets
> 4. Process remaining 5 packets as normal
>
> What function calls does the application make to achieve this?
> In particular, I'm referring to how can the scheduler know that the 3rd
> packet is the one being fragmented, and how to keep packet order valid.
>
>
> Dropping packets:
> 1. Dequeue 8 packets
> 2. Process 2 packets
> 3. Processing 3rd, this packet needs to be dropped
> 4. Process remaining 5 packets as normal
>
> What function calls does the application make to achieve this?
> Again, in particular how does the scheduler know that the 3rd packet is being
> dropped.
>
>
> Regards, -Harry
Hi,
these questions apply particularly to reordered which has a lot more
complications than the other types in terms of sending packets back into
the scheduler. However, atomic types will still suffer from problems
with things the way they are - again if we assume a burst of 8 packets,
then to forward those packets, we need to re-enqueue them again to the
scheduler, and also then send 8 releases to the scheduler as well, to
release the atomic locks for those packets.
This means that for each packet we have to send two messages to a
scheduler core, something that is really inefficient.
This number of messages is critical for any software implementation, as
the cost of moving items core-to-core is going to be a big bottleneck
(perhaps the biggest bottleneck) in the system. It's for this reason we
need to use burst APIs - as with rte_rings.
How we have solved this in our implementation, is to allow there to be
an event operation type. The four operations we implemented are as below
(using packet as a synonym for event here, since these would mostly
apply to packets flowing through a system):
* NEW - just a regular enqueue of a packet, without any previous context
* FORWARD - enqueue a packet, and mark the flow processing for the
equivalent packet that was dequeued as completed, i.e.
release any atomic locks, or reorder this packet with
respect to any other outstanding packets from the event queue.
* DROP - this is roughtly equivalent to the existing "release" API call,
except that having it as an enqueue type allows us to
release multiple items in a single call, and also to mix
releases with new packets and forwarded packets
* PARTIAL - this indicates that the packet being enqueued should be
treated according to the context of the current packet, but
that that context should not be released/completed by the
enqueue of this packet. This only really applies for
reordered events, and is needed to do fragmentation and or
multicast of packets with reordering.
Therefore, I think we need to use some of the bits just freed up in the
event structure to include an enqueue operation type. Without it, I just
can't see how the API can ever support burst operation on packets.
Regards,
/Bruce
