On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 9:38 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > > On 2024-05-27 17:35, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 1:13 AM Mattias Rönnblom > > <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> > >> Add the RTE_EVENT_DEV_CAP_IMPLICIT_RELEASE_DISABLE capability to the > >> DSW event device. > >> > >> This feature may be used by an EAL thread to pull more work from the > >> work scheduler, without giving up the option to forward events > >> originating from a previous dequeue batch. This in turn allows an EAL > >> thread to be productive while waiting for a hardware accelerator to > >> complete some operation. > >> > >> Prior to this change, DSW didn't make any distinction between > >> RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD and RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW type events, other than that > >> new events would be backpressured earlier. > >> > >> After this change, DSW tracks the number of released events (i.e., > >> events of type RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD and RTE_EVENT_OP_RELASE) that has > >> been enqueued. > >> > >> For efficency reasons, DSW does not track the *identity* of individual > >> events. This in turn implies that a certain stage in the flow > >> migration process, DSW must wait for all pending releases (on the > >> migration source port, only) to be received from the application, to > >> assure that no event pertaining to any of the to-be-migrated flows are > >> being processed. > >> > >> With this change, DSW starts making a distinction between forward and > >> new type events for credit allocation purposes. Only RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW > >> events needs credits. All events marked as RTE_EVENT_OP_FORWARD must > >> have a corresponding dequeued event from a previous dequeue batch. > >> > >> Flow migration for flows on RTE_SCHED_TYPE_PARALLEL queues remains > >> unaffected by this change. > >> > >> A side-effect of the tweaked DSW migration logic is that the migration > >> latency is reduced, regardless if implicit relase is enabled or not. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> > > > > > > 1) Update releases for PMD specific section for this new feature > > Should the release note update be in the same patch, or a separate?
Same patch. > > > 2) Fix CI issue as applicable > > > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20240524192437.183960-1-mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com/ > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2024-May/672848.html > > https://github.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/actions/runs/9229147658
