Hi, Regarding my comments, I want to know how it will be proceeded. Will be there any patches that will update the current classification tests to support the poll and updated scheduled queues version?
Regards, Radu -----Original Message----- From: Bulie Radu-Andrei-B37577 Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:59 PM To: 'Jerin Jacob' Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; 'Balasubramanian Manoharan' Subject: RE: [lng-odp] classification tests scheduled queues Hi, I think it's a good approach. One could see the functional test behavior using either poll or schedule on the classification path. -----Original Message----- From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:29 PM To: Bulie Radu-Andrei-B37577 Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [lng-odp] classification tests scheduled queues On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:07:15PM +0000, Radu-Andrei Bulie wrote: > As I said in my comment we could use two approaches.(poll or data path > thread). How about the scheme(#define IPSEC_POLL_QUEUES) followed in existing example/ipsec to abstract polled vs schedule mode ? > The one you mentioned reflects the model of the reference applications. > Classification test itself, for the present moment, is a functional > test and does not target performance. So I don't see a major difference in > using poll or a data path thread. > > > Regards, > > Radu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:59 PM > To: Bulie Radu-Andrei-B37577 > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] classification tests scheduled queues > > Wouldn't it be better to modify the validation program to make sure > scheduling is always performed on a data path thread? > We want to promote usage of the scheduler, HW-accelerated classification and > scheduling are some of the differentiators of ODP. > > On 3 February 2015 at 13:53, Radu-Andrei Bulie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have a comment regarding the scheduling approach in the > > classification validation tests (this also can be extended to other > > tests which use the same pattern). > > > > The schedule function should be called in context of a data path > > thread that is bound to a known core (the same model as in pktio > > application for instance). Otherwise > > > > (as in the mentioned test) the main process (in this case the cunit > > test) can be scheduled by Linux on any core – e.g core 0 – that is > > not in the data path. In this situation no dequeue will occur, > > because the scheduling does not take place on a data path thread > > (unlike the case for pktio application where there is a cpu dedicated to > > control path). > > > > From the linux-generic perspective, there is no apparent issue in > > using the schedule function in this context. But as it is given in > > the reference application, the purpose of the scheduling is to > > function on the data path and thus to provide the advantages given > > by different SoCs acceleration implementations. (there will always > > be a control core and some data path cores). > > > > Thus, being in accordance with the reference applications from odp, > > I suggest replacing the scheduled queues with poll queues or create > > a separate thread which receives the packet, otherwise the test will > > function only on linux generic implementation. > > > > > > > > PS: I could send the patch (using poll queues approach) if we reach > > a consensus. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Radu > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
