On 06/22 18:30:47, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > On 06/22/17 17:55, Brian Brooks wrote: > > On 06/22 10:27:01, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> I was asking to make sure that performance impact has been checked also > >> when timers are not used, e.g. l2fwd performance before and after the > >> change. It would be also appropriate to test impact in the worst case: > >> l2fwd type application + a periodic 1sec timeout. Timer is on, but > >> timeouts come very unfrequently (compared to packets). > >> > >> It seems that no performance tests were run, although the change affects > >> performance of many applications (e.g. OFP has high packet rate with > >> timers). Configuration options should be set with defaults that are > >> acceptable trade-off between packet processing performance and timeout > >> accuracy. > > > > If timers are not used, the overhead is just checking a RO variable > > (post global init). If timers are used, CONFIG_ parameters have been > > provided. The defaults for these parameters came from the work to > > drastically reduce jitter of timer processing which is documented > > here [1] and presented at Linaro Connect here [2]. > > > > If you speculate that these defaults might need to be changed, e.g. > > l2fwd, we welcome collaboration and data. But, this is not a blocking > > issue for this patch right now. > > > > [1] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sY7rOxqCNu-bMqjBiT5_keAIohrX1ZW-eL0oGLAQ4OM/edit?usp=sharing > > [2] http://connect.linaro.org/resource/bud17/bud17-320/ > > > > 1) we have all adjustable configs here > ./platform/linux-generic/include/odp_config_internal.h > that might be also needs to be there.
We had to move scalable scheduler CONFIG_ into include/odp_schedule_scalable_config.h because it was decided that placing component-specific CONFIG_ in odp_config_internal.h was not allowed. > 2) Do we need something special in CI to check different config values? No, the two CONFIG_ in this patch are related to timing. So, they do not affect things like conditional compilation or enable/disable functionality. > 3) Why it's compile time config values and not run time? It is simpler. > Maxim. > > > >> -Petri > >> > >> > >> From: Maxim Uvarov [mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:22 AM > >> To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> > >> Cc: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolai...@nokia.com>; > >> lng-odp-forward <lng-odp@lists.linaro.org> > >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4] timer: allow timer processing > >> to run on worker cores > >> > >> Petri, do you want to test performance before patch inclusion? > >> Maxim. > >> > >> On 21 June 2017 at 21:52, Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> <mailto:honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> We have not run any performance application. In our Linaro connect > >> meeting, we presented numbers on how it improves the timer resolution. > >> At this point, there is enough configuration options to control the > >> effect of calling timer in the scheduler. For applications that do not > >> want to use the timer, there should not be any change. For > >> applications that use timers non-frequently, the check frequency can > >> be controlled via the provided configuration options. > >> > >> On 20 June 2017 at 02:34, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > >> <mailto:petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > >>> Do you have some performance numbers? E.g. how much this slows down an > >>> application which does not use timers (e.g. l2fwd), or an application > >>> that uses only few, non-frequent timeouts? > >>> > >>> Additionally, init.h/feature.h is not yet in api-next - so this would not > >>> build yet. > >>> > >>> > >>> -Petri > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: lng-odp [mailto:mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf > >>>> Of > >>>> Honnappa Nagarahalli > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:07 AM > >>>> To: Bill Fischofer <mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > >>>> Cc: lng-odp-forward <mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4] timer: allow timer processing > >>>> to run on worker cores > >>>> > >>>> Are you saying we should be good to merge this now? > >>>> > >>>> On 19 June 2017 at 17:42, Bill Fischofer > >>>> <mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > >>>>> <mailto:honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Bill/Maxim, > >>>>>> I do not see any further comments, can we merge this to api-next? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Honnappa > >>> > >>> > >> >
