[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: add producer enqueue hint

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:44:10 +0000
> From: "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads at intel.com>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>, "dev at dpdk.org"
>  <dev at dpdk.org>
> CC: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson at intel.com>, "Van Haaren, Harry"
>  <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>, "hemant.agrawal at nxp.com"
>  <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>, "nipun.gupta at nxp.com" <nipun.gupta at nxp.com>,
>  "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vangati at intel.com>, "Rao, Nikhil"
>  <nikhil.rao at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: add producer enqueue hint
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 6:46 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry
> > <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Eads, Gage
> > <gage.eads at intel.com>; nipun.gupta at nxp.com; Vangati, Narender
> > <narender.vangati at intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao at intel.com>; Jerin Jacob
> > <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: add producer enqueue hint
> > 
> > Some PMD like OCTEONTX can have optimized handling of events if the PMD
> > knows it is a producer pattern in advance.
> > For instance, OCTEONTX PMD can support burst mode if op ==
> > RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW.
> > 
> > Since the event producer initialize(set all_op_new == 1) the event object before
> > the main producer loop, This scheme does not call for any performance
> > regression on other PMDs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> > ---
> > Another option is to add a flag in enqueue API or have parallel enqueue API.
> > ---
> >  drivers/event/octeontx/ssovf_worker.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h    | 10 +++++++++-
> >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/event/octeontx/ssovf_worker.c
> > b/drivers/event/octeontx/ssovf_worker.c
> > index ad3fe684d..209c595cf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/event/octeontx/ssovf_worker.c
> > +++ b/drivers/event/octeontx/ssovf_worker.c
> > @@ -196,8 +196,16 @@ ssows_enq(void *port, const struct rte_event *ev)
> > uint16_t __hot  ssows_enq_burst(void *port, const struct rte_event ev[],
> > uint16_t nb_events)  {
> > -	RTE_SET_USED(nb_events);
> > -	return ssows_enq(port, ev);
> > +	uint16_t i;
> > +	struct ssows *ws = port;
> > +
> > +	if (ev[0].all_op_new) {
> > +		rte_smp_wmb();
> > +		for (i = 0; i < nb_events; i++)
> > +			ssows_new_event(ws, &ev[i]);
> > +		return i;
> > +	} else
> > +		return ssows_enq(port, ev);
> >  }
> > 
> >  void
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h
> > b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h
> > index a248fe90e..1c1a46593 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h
> > @@ -933,7 +933,15 @@ struct rte_event {
> >  			 * and is undefined on dequeue.
> >  			 * @see RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW, (RTE_EVENT_OP_*)
> >  			 */
> > -			uint8_t rsvd:4;
> > +			uint8_t all_op_new:1;
> > +			/**< Valid only with event enqueue operation - This hint
> > +			 * indicates that the enqueue request has only the
> > +			 * events with op == RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW.
> > +			 * The event producer, typically use this pattern to
> > +			 * inject the events to eventdev.
> > +			 * @see RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW
> > rte_event_enqueue_burst()
> > +			 */
> > +			uint8_t rsvd:3;
> >  			/**< Reserved for future use */
> >  			uint8_t sched_type:2;
> >  			/**< Scheduler synchronization type
> > (RTE_SCHED_TYPE_*)
> > --
> > 2.13.1
> 
> I slightly prefer the parallel enqueue API -- I can see folks making the mistake of setting all_op_new without setting the op to RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW, and later adding a "forward-only" enqueue API could be interesting for the sw PMD -- but this looks fine to me. Curious if others have any thoughts.

If forward-only parallel enqueue API interesting for the SW PMD then I
can drop this one and introduce forward-only API. Let me know if others
have any thoughts?