[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 09/12] app/eventdev: add pipeline queue worker functions

[Pavan Nikhilesh]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:17:38PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
 > >
 <snip>
> > > Thinking a little more about this, also in light of patch 11/12 of this
> > series.
> > >
> > > The code here has a "safe" and "unsafe" version of TX. This involves
> > adding a spinlock inside the code, which is being locked/unlocked before
> > doing the actual TX action.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why this is necessary? DPDK's general stance on locking
> > for data-path is DPDK functions do not provide locks, and that application
> > level must implement thread-synchronization if it is required.
> > >
> > > In this case, the app/eventdev can be considered an App, but I don't like
> > the idea of providing a sample application and code that duplicates core
> > functionality with safe/unsafe versions..
> > >
> >
> > Some PMD's (net/octeontx) have capability to do multi-thread safe Tx where
> > no
> > thread-synchronization is required. This is exposed via the offload flag
> > 'DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE'.
>
> Yes understood.
>
>
> > So, the _safe Tx functions are selected based on the above offload
> > capability
> > and when the capability is absent _unsafe Tx functions are selected i.e.
> > synchronized Tx via spin locks based on the Egress port id.
>
>
> This part changes the current behavior of the sample app.
>
> Currently there is a (SINGLE_LINK | ATOMIC) stage at the end of the pipeline, which performs this "many-to-one" action, allowing a single core to dequeue all TX traffic, and perform the TX operation in a lock-free manner.
>
> Changing this to a locking mechanism is going to hurt performance on platforms that do not support TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE.
>
> In my opinion, the correct fix is to alter the overall pipeline, and always use lockless TX. Examples below;
>
> NO TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE:
>
>    Eth RX adapter -> stage 1 -> stage 2...(N-1) -> stage N -> stage TX (Atomic | SINGLE_LINK) -> eth TX

Agreed, when we detect that tx is not lockfree the workers would just forward
the events to  (Atomic | SINGLE_LINK) event queue which would be dequeued by a
service(mt_unsafe) and Tx them lockfree.

>
>
> WITH TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE:
>
>    Eth RX adapter -> stage 1 -> stage 2...(N-1) -> stage N -> eth TX MT Capable

The current lockfree pipeline would remain the same.
>
>
> By configuring the pipeline based on MT_OFFLOAD_LOCKFREE capability flag, and adding the SINGLE_LINK at the end if required, we can support both models without resorting to locked TX functions.
>
> I think this will lead to a cleaner and more performant solution.
>

Thoughts?

Pavan.

> <snip>