> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:04 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org; Wiles, Keith
> <keith.wi...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:14:39 +0000
> > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, 'Jerin Jacob'
> > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com>,
> > "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: Service lcores and Application lcores
> >
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:39 AM
> > > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; 'Jerin Jacob' <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; Wiles,
> > > Keith
> > > <keith.wi...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores
> > >
> > > 30/06/2017 12:18, Van Haaren, Harry:
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > > > > 30/06/2017 10:52, Van Haaren, Harry:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > > > > > > 29/06/2017 18:35, Van Haaren, Harry:
> > > > > > > > 3) The problem;
> > > > > > > > If a service core runs the SW PMD schedule() function
> > > > > > > > (option 2) *AND*
> > > > > > > > the application lcore runs schedule() func (option 1), the
> > > > > > > > result is that
> > > > > > > > two threads are concurrently running a multi-thread unsafe
> > > > > > > > function.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which function is multi-thread unsafe?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the current design, the service-callback does not have to be
> > > > > > multi-thread
> safe.
> > > > > > For example, the eventdev SW PMD is not multi-thread safe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The service library handles serializing access to the
> > > > > > service-callback if
> multiple
> > > cores
> > > > > > are mapped to that service. This keeps the atomic complexity in one
> > > > > > place, and
> keeps
> > > > > > services as light-weight to implement as possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (We could consider forcing all service-callbacks to be multi-thread
> > > > > > safe by
> using
> > > > > atomics,
> > > > > > but we would not be able to optimize away the atomic cmpset if it
> > > > > > is not
> required.
> > > This
> > > > > > feels heavy handed, and would cause useless atomic ops to execute.)
> > > > >
> > > > > OK thank you for the detailed explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Why the same function would be run by the service and by the
> > > > > > > scheduler?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same function can be run concurrently by the application, and a
> > > > > > service
> core.
> > > > > > The root cause that this could happen is that an application can
> > > > > > *think* it is
> the
> > > > > > only one running threads, but in reality one or more service-cores
> > > > > > may be
> running
> > > > > > in the background.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The service lcores and application lcores existence without
> > > > > > knowledge of the
> others
> > > > > > behavior is the cause of concurrent running of the multi-thread
> > > > > > unsafe service
> > > function.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the part I still don't understand.
> > > > > Why an application would run a function on its own core if it is
> > > > > already
> > > > > run as a service? Can we just have a check that the service API exists
> > > > > and that the service is running?
> > > >
> > > > The point is that really it is an application / service core mis-match.
> > > > The application should never run a PMD that it knows also has a service
> > > > core running
> it.
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > However, porting applications to the service-core API has an over-lap
> > > > time where an
> > > > application on 17.05 will be required to call eg:
> > > > rte_eventdev_schedule() itself,
> and
> > > > depending on startup EAL flags for service-cores, it may-or-may-not
> > > > have to call
> > > schedule() manually.
> > >
> > > Yes service cores may be unavailable, depending of user configuration.
> > > That's why it must be possible to request the service core API
> > > to know whether a service is run or not.
> >
> > Yep - an application can check if a service is running by calling
> rte_service_is_running(struct service_spec*);
> > It returns true if a service-core is running, mapped to the service, and
> > the service is
> start()-ed.
>
> If I understand it correctly, driver should check the the _required_
> service has been running or not ? Not the _application_. Right?
I think the PMD should check if a service core is mapped, and it can print a
warning if not.
In the case of eventdev, the eventdev_start() is the function where
service_is_running() is checked, and if not, we inform the user that no
service-core is ready to run the service.
>From the application POV, it could use e.g. the rte_service_iterate()* to run
>that service - so the PMD should not fail to start(), just warn that at time
>of starting there was no core available to it. The application itself must
>still check if it should call rte_eventdev_schedule() itself, based on
>rte_version.h as Thomas mentioned.
The ideal end goal is in my opinion something like this;
Service cores are used to run services by 95+% of apps, to abstract away SW/HW
core-requirement differences.
Advanced applications can utilize rte_service_iterate() to run specific
services on application lcores if it wishes.
* See other "branch" of this thread about rte_service_iterate()
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-June/069540.html
> > > When porting an application to service core, you just have to run this
> > > check, which is known to be available for DPDK 17.08 (check
> > > rte_version.h).
> >
> > Ok, so as part of porting to service-cores, applications are expected to
> > sanity check
> the services vs their own lcore config.
> > If there's no disagreement, I will add it to the releases notes of the V+1
> > service-cores
> patchset.
> >
> > There is still a need for the rte_service_iterate() function as discussed
> > in the other
> branch of this thread.
> > I'll wait for consensus on that and post the next revision then.
> >
> > Thanks for the questions / input!
> >
> >
> > > > This is pretty error prone, and mis-configuration would cause A)
> > > > deadlock due to no
> CPU
> > > cycles, B) segfault due to two cores.
