PING! On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote: > Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on > the list for a month > > On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 >> > We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. >> > Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. >> >> The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I >> didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, >> but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for >> at least 0.7 and 0.8? >> >> > >> >> >> >> On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important >> >>> >> for >> >>> >> 1.0 >> >>> >> and needs to be in the delta doc ? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer >> >>> >> <[email protected]> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's >> >>> >>> a >> >>> >>> poor >> >>> >>> set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is >> >>> >>> definitely >> >>> >>> something we need to address. My suggestion is that a >> >>> >>> odp_schedule_pause() >> >>> >>> should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is >> >>> >>> using a >> >>> >>> scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly >> >>> >>> transparent >> >>> >>> and >> >>> >>> moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing >> >>> >>> since >> >>> >>> who >> >>> >>> knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since >> >>> >>> otherwise >> >>> >>> the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the >> >>> >>> first >> >>> >>> place. >> >>> >> >>> Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give >> >>> a brief update on what was decided? >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu >> >>> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob >> >>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>>> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]> >> >>> >>>> >> --- >> >>> >>>> >> test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63 >> >>> >>>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> >>> >>>> >> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c >> >>> >>>> >> b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c >> >>> >>>> >> index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644 >> >>> >>>> >> --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c >> >>> >>>> >> +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c >> >>> >>>> >> @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@ >> >>> >>>> >> #define MSG_POOL_SIZE (4*1024*1024) >> >>> >>>> >> #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16 >> >>> >>>> >> #define BUF_SIZE 64 >> >>> >>>> >> -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS 100 >> >>> >>>> >> +#define NUM_BUFS 100 >> >>> >>>> >> #define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4 >> >>> >>>> >> -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 10000 >> >>> >>>> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL 10000 >> >>> >>>> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000 >> >>> >>>> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE 10 >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME "test_globals" >> >>> >>>> >> #define MSG_POOL_NAME "msg_pool" >> >>> >>>> >> @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void >> >>> >>>> >> schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t >> >>> >>>> >> sync, int num_queues, >> >>> >>>> >> args.sync = sync; >> >>> >>>> >> args.num_queues = num_queues; >> >>> >>>> >> args.num_prio = num_prio; >> >>> >>>> >> - args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; >> >>> >>>> >> + args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; >> >>> >>>> >> args.num_cores = 1; >> >>> >>>> >> args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; >> >>> >>>> >> args.enable_excl_atomic = 0; /* Not needed with a >> >>> >>>> >> single >> >>> >>>> >> core */ >> >>> >>>> >> @@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void >> >>> >>>> >> parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t >> >>> >>>> >> sync, int num_queues, >> >>> >>>> >> thr_args->num_queues = num_queues; >> >>> >>>> >> thr_args->num_prio = num_prio; >> >>> >>>> >> if (enable_excl_atomic) >> >>> >>>> >> - thr_args->num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL; >> >>> >>>> >> + thr_args->num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL; >> >>> >>>> >> else >> >>> >>>> >> - thr_args->num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; >> >>> >>>> >> + thr_args->num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; >> >>> >>>> >> thr_args->num_cores = globals->core_count; >> >>> >>>> >> thr_args->enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; >> >>> >>>> >> thr_args->enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic; >> >>> >>>> >> @@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void >> >>> >>>> >> test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void) >> >>> >>>> >> ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC); >> >>> >>>> >> } >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> +static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void) >> >>> >>>> >> +{ >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_queue_t queue; >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_buffer_t buf; >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_queue_t from; >> >>> >>>> >> + int i; >> >>> >>>> >> + int local_bufs = 0; >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + queue = odp_queue_lookup("sched_0_0_n"); >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID); >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME); >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID); >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) { >> >>> >>>> >> + buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool); >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID); >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_queue_enq(queue, buf); >> >>> >>>> >> + } >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) { >> >>> >>>> >> + buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT); >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(from == queue); >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_buffer_free(buf); >> >>> >>>> >> + } >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_schedule_pause(); >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + while (1) { >> >>> >>>> >> + buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT); >> >>> >>>> >> + if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID) >> >>> >>>> >> + break; >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(from == queue); >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_buffer_free(buf); >> >>> >>>> >> + local_bufs++; >> >>> >>>> >> + } >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(local_bufs < NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - >> >>> >>>> >> NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE); >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be >> >>> >>>> > CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ? >> >>> >>>> > meaning, the complete pause ? >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I >> >>> >>>> must >> >>> >>>> have accidentally marked this email as read. >> >>> >>>> The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there >> >>> >>>> might >> >>> >>>> still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause >> >>> >>>> documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler >> >>> >>>> dequeues >> >>> >>>> buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further >> >>> >>>> dequeues, >> >>> >>>> buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With that in mind, the >> >>> >>>> check >> >>> >>>> above makes sure that after pausing only a limited number of >> >>> >>>> packets >> >>> >>>> are still scheduled, or else said pausing seems to work, not all >> >>> >>>> packets being drained. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_schedule_resume(); >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> + for (i = local_bufs + NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i < >> >>> >>>> >> NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) { >> >>> >>>> >> + buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_WAIT); >> >>> >>>> >> + CU_ASSERT(from == queue); >> >>> >>>> >> + odp_buffer_free(buf); >> >>> >>>> >> + } >> >>> >>>> >> +} >> >>> >>>> >> + >> >>> >>>> >> static int create_queues(void) >> >>> >>>> >> { >> >>> >>>> >> int i, j, prios; >> >>> >>>> >> @@ -594,6 +646,7 @@ struct CU_TestInfo test_odp_schedule[] = { >> >>> >>>> >> {"schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a", >> >>> >>>> >> test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a}, >> >>> >>>> >> {"schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o", >> >>> >>>> >> test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o}, >> >>> >>>> >> {"schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl", >> >>> >>>> >> test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl}, >> >>> >>>> >> + {"schedule_pause_resume", >> >>> >>>> >> test_schedule_pause_resume}, >> >>> >>>> >> CU_TEST_INFO_NULL, >> >>> >>>> >> }; >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> -- >> >>> >>>> >> 1.8.3.2 >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>> >> lng-odp mailing list >> >>> >>>> >> [email protected] >> >>> >>>> >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>> lng-odp mailing list >> >>> >>>> [email protected] >> >>> >>>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>> lng-odp mailing list >> >>> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> Mike Holmes >> >>> >> Linaro Sr Technical Manager >> >>> >> LNG - ODP >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mike Holmes >> >> Linaro Sr Technical Manager >> >> LNG - ODP >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> lng-odp mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >> > > > > > -- > Mike Holmes > Linaro Sr Technical Manager > LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
