On 28-May-21 10:09 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
On 25-May-21 10:15 AM, Liu, Yong wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Anatoly Burakov
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:32 PM
To: dev@dpdk.org; McDaniel, Timothy <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>;
Xing,
Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Yang,
Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>;
Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Matan Azrad
<ma...@nvidia.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@nvidia.com>; Viacheslav
Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Richardson, Bruce
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
<konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
Cc: Loftus, Ciara <ciara.lof...@intel.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [21.08 PATCH v1 1/2] power: invert the monitor check
Previously, the semantics of power monitor were such that we were
checking current value against the expected value, and if they matched,
then the sleep was aborted. This is somewhat inflexible, because it only
allowed us to check for a specific value.
We can reverse the check, and instead have monitor sleep to be aborted
if the expected value *doesn't* match what's in memory. This allows us
to both implement all currently implemented driver code, as well as
support more use cases which don't easily map to previous semantics
(such as waiting on writes to AF_XDP counter value).
Hi Anatoly,
In virtio spec, packed formatted descriptor utilizes two bits for representing
the status. One bit for available status, one bit for used status.
For checking the status more precisely, it is need to check value against the
expected value.
The monitor function in virtio datapath still can work with new semantics,
but it may lead to some useless io call.
Base on that, I'd like to keep previous semantics.
Regards,
Marvin
Thanks for your feedback! Would making this an option make things
better? Because we need the inverted semantics for AF_XDP, it can't work
without it. So, we either invert all of them, or we have an option to do
regular or inverted check on a per-condition basis. Would that work?
That will be great if we can select the check type based on input parameter.
Just in virtio datapath, we need both inverted and original semantics for
different ring formats.
Should we probably the consider introducing _check_ callback to be provided by
PMD?
So we can leave these various check details inside PMD itself.
And monitor will just read the specified address and call the callback.
Konstantin
Getting monitor condition *is* "the check" IMO. I think adding an option
to the comparison should cover pretty much all worthwhile use cases
without overcomplicating things. In any case, patches already sent [1] :)
[1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=17191
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
