[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/scheduler: add multicore scheduling mode

[De Lara Guarch, Pablo]

Hi Kirill,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pablo de Lara
> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 9:09 PM
> To: Doherty, Declan; Zhang, Roy Fan
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Rybalchenko, Kirill
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/scheduler: add multicore scheduling
> mode
> 
> From: Kirill Rybalchenko <kirill.rybalchenko at intel.com>
> 
> Multi-core scheduling mode is a mode where scheduler distributes
> crypto operations in a round-robin base, between several core
> assigned as workers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Rybalchenko <kirill.rybalchenko at intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_throughput.c       |   2 +
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/Makefile                  |   1 +
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/rte_cryptodev_scheduler.c |   7 +
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/rte_cryptodev_scheduler.h |   6 +
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c     | 405
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_pmd.c           |  73 +++-
>  drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_pmd_private.h   |   4 +
>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c               |   2 +-
>  8 files changed, 497 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_throughput.c b/app/test-
> crypto-perf/cperf_test_throughput.c
> index 61b27ea..0504a37 100644
> --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_throughput.c
> +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_throughput.c
> @@ -502,6 +502,8 @@ cperf_throughput_test_runner(void *test_ctx)
> 
>  	}
> 
> +	rte_cryptodev_stop(ctx->dev_id);

This should be in a separate patch, but this is probably in the wrong place,
as this runner is called several times when using multiple buffer sizes.

> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

...

> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..12e5734
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c


> +struct mc_scheduler_qp_ctx {
> +	struct scheduler_slave
> slaves[RTE_CRYPTODEV_SCHEDULER_MAX_NB_SLAVES];
> +	uint32_t nb_slaves;
> +
> +	uint32_t last_enq_worker_idx;
> +	uint32_t last_deq_worker_idx;

I would say these can be uint8_t.

...

> +static int
> +scheduler_stop(struct rte_cryptodev *dev)
> +{
> +	struct scheduler_ctx *sched_ctx = dev->data->dev_private;
> +	struct mc_scheduler_ctx *mc_ctx = sched_ctx->private_ctx;
> +
> +	mc_ctx->stop_signal = 1;
> +	for (uint16_t i = 0; i < sched_ctx->nb_wc; i++)

Declare the variable "i" outside the foor loop.

> +		rte_eal_wait_lcore(sched_ctx->wc_pool[i]);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

 
>  const struct scheduler_parse_map scheduler_ordering_map[] = {
> @@ -117,6 +124,17 @@ cryptodev_scheduler_create(const char *name,
>  	sched_ctx->max_nb_queue_pairs =
>  			init_params->def_p.max_nb_queue_pairs;
> 
> +	if (init_params->mode == CDEV_SCHED_MODE_MULTICORE) {
> +		sched_ctx->nb_wc = 0;
> +		for (uint16_t i = 0; i < MAX_NB_WORKER_CORES; i++) {

Declare variable "i" outside for loop.

> +			if (init_params->wcmask & (1ULL << i)) {
> +				sched_ctx->wc_pool[sched_ctx->nb_wc++] =
> i;
> +				RTE_LOG(INFO, PMD, "  Worker
> core[%u]=%u added\n",
> +						sched_ctx->nb_wc-1, i);
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	if (init_params->mode > CDEV_SCHED_MODE_USERDEFINED &&
>  			init_params->mode < CDEV_SCHED_MODE_COUNT)
> {
>  		ret = rte_cryptodev_scheduler_mode_set(dev->data-
> >dev_id,
> @@ -251,6 +269,42 @@ parse_integer_arg(const char *key __rte_unused,
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

...

> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> index b65cd9c..5aa2b8b 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> @@ -1032,8 +1032,8 @@ rte_cryptodev_stop(uint8_t dev_id)
>  		return;
>  	}
> 
> -	dev->data->dev_started = 0;
>  	(*dev->dev_ops->dev_stop)(dev);
> +	dev->data->dev_started = 0;

Separate patch for this.

>  }

Last thing, there are some compilation issues to fix, according to patchwork:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/test-report/2017-May/020993.html

Thanks,
Pablo