[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: increase number of qps to lcore_params

[Anoob Joseph]

Hi Akhil,

> > > @Akhil, do you have any comments?
> > >
> > > Also, I think we should make it
> > > <port>,<queue>,<lcore>,<cdev_id>,<cdev-queue>
> > >
> > Looks good to me, but I believe this would need more changes and
> > testing in event patches.
> > Also it does not have any changes for lookaside cases.
> > Can we move this to next release and add lookaside case as well in a
> > single go.
> 
> [Anoob] Not a problem. I'll defer this to next release then.

This patch is not part of the event additions to ipsec-segcw. This patch is required to handle few corner cases, but is equally applicable to lookaside crypto as well. I had agreed to only deferring this patch.

Lukasz is preparing v4 of event mode patches with doc update and addressing one minor comment from Konstantin. If the event ipsec-secgw patches are not getting merged for this release, can you confirm it will be merged immediately after this release? I'm assuming you have finished the reviews as the patch was submitted early in this release cycle.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:52 PM
> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau at intel.com>
> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik
> <lbartosik at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathreya at marvell.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: increase number of qps to
> lcore_params
> 
> Hi Akhil,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anoob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:46 PM
> > To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu
> <radu.nicolau at intel.com>
> > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik
> > <lbartosik at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > <pathreya at marvell.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [EXT] RE: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: increase number of
> > qps to lcore_params
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Currently only one qp will be used for one core. The
> > > > > > > > > number of qps can be increased to match the number of
> > > > > > > > > lcore
> > params.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't really understand the purpose of that patch....
> > > > > > > > As I understand, all it does - unconditionally increases
> > > > > > > > number of crypto-queues mapped to the same lcore.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Anoob] With the current code, we will have only crypto qp
> > > > > > > mapped to one lcore. So even if you have large number of
> > > > > > > crypto qps, you would be only
> > > > > > using as much as the number of lcores.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is an inefficient model as a fat flow(say with large
> > > > > > > packet
> > > > > > > sizes) on one eth queue hitting one core can starve another
> > > > > > > flow which
> > > > > > happens to hit the same core, because both flows would get
> > > > > > queued to the same qp.
> > > > > > > And, we cannot just randomly submit to multiple qps from the
> > > > > > > same core as then the ordering would be messed up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one suggesting that one I believe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the best possible usage model would be to map one eth queue
> > > > > > to one
> > > > > > > crypto qp. That way, the core wouldn't be unnecessarily
> > > > > > > pipeline the crypto
> > > > > > processing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I doubt it is really the 'best possible usage model'.
> > > > > > There could be cases when forcing lcore to use/manage more
> > > > > > crypto-queues will lead to negative effects: perf drop, not
> > > > > > enough crypto queues for all eth queues, etc.
> > > > > > If your HW/SW requires to match each eth queue with a separate
> > > > > > crypto-queue, then I think it should be an optional feature,
> > > > > > while keeping default behavior intact.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Anoob] I think the question here is more to do with s/w crypto
> > > > > PMDs vs h/w crypto PMDs. For s/w PMDs, having more queues
> > > > > doesn't really
> > > > make sense and for h/w PMDs it's better.
> > > >
> > > > Not always.
> > > > If these queues belongs to the same device, sometimes it is faster
> > > > to use just one queue for device per core.
> > > > HW descriptor status polling, etc. is not free.
> > > >
> > > > > I'll see how we can make this an optional feature. Would you be
> > > > > okay with allowing such behavior if the underlying PMD can
> > > > > support as many
> > > > queues as lcore_params?
> > > > >
> > > > > As in, if the PMD doesn't support enough queues, we do 1 qp per
> core.
> > > > Would that work for you?
> > > >
> > > > I am not fond of idea to change default mapping method silently.
> > > > My preference would be a new command-line option (--cdev-maping
> or
> > so).
> > > > Another thought, make it more fine-grained and user-controlled by
> > > > extending eth-port-queue-lcore mapping option.
> > > > from current: <port>,<queue>,<lcore> to
> > > > <port>,<queue>,<lcore>,<cdev-queue>.
> > > >
> > > > So let say with 2 cores , 2 eth ports/2 queues per port for
> > > > current mapping user would do:
> > > > # use cdev queue 0 on all cdevs for lcore 6 # use cdev queue 1 on
> > > > all cdevs for lcore 7 --lcores="6,7" ... -- --
> > config="(0,0,6,0),(1,0,6,0),(0,1,7,1),(1,1,7,1)"
> > > >
> > > > for the mapping you'd like to have:
> > > > --lcores="6,7" ... -- --config="(0,0,6,0),(1,0,6,1),(0,1,7,2),(1,1,7,3)"
> > >
> > > [Anoob] I like this idea. This would work for inline case as well.
> > >
> > > @Akhil, do you have any comments?
> > >
> > > Also, I think we should make it
> > > <port>,<queue>,<lcore>,<cdev_id>,<cdev-queue>
> > >
> > Looks good to me, but I believe this would need more changes and
> > testing in event patches.
> > Also it does not have any changes for lookaside cases.
> > Can we move this to next release and add lookaside case as well in a
> > single go.
> 
> [Anoob] Not a problem. I'll defer this to next release then.
> 
> > We need to close the RC2 on 5th Feb, and I don't want to push this
> > series for
> > RC3 as it is a massive change in ipsec-secgw.
> >
> > -Akhil