Re: [PATCH v2 15/15] app/test: add unit tests for SW eventdev driver

[Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@nxp.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 15:53
> To: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; David
> Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>; Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@nxp.com>; Hemant
> Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>; gage.eads@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/15] app/test: add unit tests for SW eventdev driver
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:14:33PM +0000, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> >
> > Since the sw driver is a standalone lookaside device that has no HW
> > requirements, we can provide a set of unit tests that test its
> > functionality across the different queue types and with different input
> > scenarios.
> >
> 
> Thanks for SW driver specific test cases. It provided me a good insight
> of expected application behavior from SW driver perspective and in turn it
> created
> some challenge in portable applications.
> 
> I would like highlight a main difference between the implementation and get a
> consensus on how to abstract it?
> 
> Based on existing header file, We can do event pipelining in two different ways
> a) Flow-based event pipelining
> b) queue_id based event pipelining
> 
> I will provide an example to showcase application flow in both modes.
> Based on my understanding from SW driver source code, it supports only
> queue_id based event pipelining. I guess, Flow based event pipelining will
> work semantically with SW driver but it will be very slow.
> 
> I think, the reason for the difference is the capability of the context definition.
> SW model the context is - queue_id
> Cavium HW model the context is queue_id + flow_id + sub_event_type +
> event_type
> 
> AFAIK, queue_id based event pipelining will work with NXP HW but I am not
> sure about flow based event pipelining model with NXP HW. Appreciate any
> input this?

[Nipun] Yes Jerin, that's right. NXP HW will not be suitable for flow based event pipelining.

> 
> In Cavium HW, We support both modes.
> 
> As an open question, Should we add a capability flag to advertise the supported
> models and let application choose the model based on implementation
> capability. The
> downside is, a small portion of stage advance code will be different but we
> can reuse the STAGE specific application code(I think it a fair
> trade off)
> 
> Bruce, Harry, Gage, Hemant, Nipun
> Thoughts? Or any other proposal?
> 
> I will take an non trivial realworld NW use case show the difference.
> A standard IPSec outbound processing will have minimum 4 to 5 stages
> 
> stage_0:
> --------
> a) Takes the pkts from ethdev and push to eventdev as
> RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW
> b) Some HW implementation, This will be done by HW. In SW implementation
> it done by service cores
> 
> stage_1:(ORDERED)
> ------------------
> a) Receive pkts from stage_0 in ORDERED flow and it process in parallel on N
> of cores
> b) Find a SA belongs that packet move to next stage for SA specific
> outbound operations.Outbound processing starts with updating the
> sequence number in the critical section and followed by packet encryption in
> parallel.
> 
> stage_2(ATOMIC) based on SA
> ----------------------------
> a) Update the sequence number and move to ORDERED sched_type for packet
> encryption in parallel
> 
> stage_3(ORDERED) based on SA
> ----------------------------
> a) Encrypt the packets in parallel
> b) Do output route look-up and figure out tx port and queue to transmit
> the packet
> c) Move to ATOMIC stage based on tx port and tx queue_id to transmit
> the packet _without_ losing the ingress ordering
> 
> stage_4(ATOMIC) based on tx port/tx queue
> -----------------------------------------
> a) enqueue the encrypted packet to ethdev tx port/tx_queue
> 
> 
> 1) queue_id based event pipelining
> =================================
> 
> stage_1_work(assigned to event queue 1)# N ports/N cores establish
> link to queue 1 through rte_event_port_link()
> 
> on_each_cores_linked_to_queue1(stage1)
> while(1)
> {
>                 /* STAGE 1 processing */
>                 nr_events = rte_event_dequeue_burst(ev,..);
>                 if (!nr_events);
>                                 continue;
> 
>                 sa = find_sa_from_packet(ev.mbuf);
> 
>                 /* move to next stage(ATOMIC) */
>                 ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
>                 ev.sub_event_type = 2;
>                 ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ATOMIC;
>                 ev.flow_id =  sa;
>                 ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
>                 ev.queue_id = 2;
>                 /* move to stage 2(event queue 2) */
>                 rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev,..);
> }
> 
> on_each_cores_linked_to_queue2(stage2)
> while(1)
> {
>                 /* STAGE 2 processing */
>                 nr_events = rte_event_dequeue_burst(ev,..);
>                 if (!nr_events);
> 			continue;
> 
>                 sa_specific_atomic_processing(sa /* ev.flow_id */);/* seq number
> update in critical section */
> 
>                 /* move to next stage(ORDERED) */
>                 ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
>                 ev.sub_event_type = 3;
>                 ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ORDERED;
>                 ev.flow_id =  sa;

[Nipun] Queue1 has flow_id as an 'sa' with sched_type as RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ATOMIC and
Queue2 has same flow_id but with sched_type as RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ORDERED.
Does this mean that same flow_id be associated with separate RTE_SCHED_TYPE_* as sched_type?

My understanding is that one flow can either be parallel or atomic or ordered.
The rte_eventdev.h states that sched_type is associated with flow_id, which also seems legitimate:
		uint8_t sched_type:2;
		/**< Scheduler synchronization type (RTE_SCHED_TYPE_*)
		 * associated with flow id on a given event queue
		 * for the enqueue and dequeue operation.
		 */

>                 ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
>                 ev.queue_id = 3;
>                 /* move to stage 3(event queue 3) */
>                 rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev,..);
> }
> 
> on_each_cores_linked_to_queue3(stage3)
> while(1)
> {
>                 /* STAGE 3 processing */
>                 nr_events = rte_event_dequeue_burst(ev,..);
>                 if (!nr_events);
> 			continue;
> 
>                 sa_specific_ordered_processing(sa /*ev.flow_id */);/* packets
> encryption in parallel */
> 
>                 /* move to next stage(ATOMIC) */
>                 ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
>                 ev.sub_event_type = 4;
>                 ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ATOMIC;
> 		output_tx_port_queue =
> find_output_tx_queue_and_tx_port(ev.mbuff);
>                 ev.flow_id =  output_tx_port_queue;
>                 ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
>                 ev.queue_id = 4;
>                 /* move to stage 4(event queue 4) */
>                 rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev,...);
> }
> 
> on_each_cores_linked_to_queue4(stage4)
> while(1)
> {
>                 /* STAGE 4 processing */
>                 nr_events = rte_event_dequeue_burst(ev,..);
>                 if (!nr_events);
> 			continue;
> 
> 		rte_eth_tx_buffer();
> }
> 
> 2) flow-based event pipelining
> =============================
> 
> - No need to partition queues for different stages
> - All the cores can operate on all the stages, Thus enables
> automatic multicore scaling, true dynamic load balancing,
> - Fairly large number of SA(kind of 2^16 to 2^20) can be processed in parallel
> Something existing IPSec application has constraints on
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides-16.04/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.html
> 
> on_each_worker_cores()
> while(1)
> {
> 	rte_event_dequeue_burst(ev,..)
> 	if (!nr_events);
> 		continue;
> 
> 	/* STAGE 1 processing */
> 	if(ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_ETHDEV) {
> 		sa = find_it_from_packet(ev.mbuf);
> 		/* move to next stage2(ATOMIC) */
> 		ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
> 		ev.sub_event_type = 2;
> 		ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ATOMIC;
> 		ev.flow_id =  sa;
> 		ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
> 		rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev..);
> 
> 	} else if(ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU &&
> ev.sub_event_type == 2) { /* stage 2 */

[Nipun] I didn't got that in this case on which event queue (and eventually
its associated event ports) will the RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU type events be received on?

Adding on to what Harry also mentions in other mail, If same code is run in the case you
mentioned in '#1 - queue_id based event pipelining', after specifying the ev.queue_id
with appropriate value then also #1 would be good. Isn't it?

> 
> 		sa_specific_atomic_processing(sa /* ev.flow_id */);/* seq
> number update in critical section */
> 		/* move to next stage(ORDERED) */
> 		ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
> 		ev.sub_event_type = 3;
> 		ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ORDERED;
> 		ev.flow_id =  sa;
> 		ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
> 		rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev,..);
> 
> 	} else if(ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU &&
> ev.sub_event_type == 3) { /* stage 3 */
> 
> 		sa_specific_ordered_processing(sa /* ev.flow_id */);/* like
> encrypting packets in parallel */
> 		/* move to next stage(ATOMIC) */
> 		ev.event_type = RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU;
> 		ev.sub_event_type = 4;
> 		ev.sched_type = RTE_SCHED_TYPE_ATOMIC;
> 		output_tx_port_queue =
> find_output_tx_queue_and_tx_port(ev.mbuff);
> 		ev.flow_id =  output_tx_port_queue;
> 		ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD;
> 		rte_event_enqueue_burst(ev,..);
> 
> 	} else if(ev.event_type == RTE_EVENT_TYPE_CPU &&
> ev.sub_event_type == 4) { /* stage 4 */
> 		rte_eth_tx_buffer();
> 	}
> }
> 
> /Jerin
> Cavium