From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3715B2C2F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDA12426B; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 May 2017 11:46:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=RKSyVSQWeOGiXS3 8FDWa4lToEaFNIVuC3e+Aanvhzxo=; b=XYsrk4MiZoWXIg7TI1Ws9KhTaIk07Ev eOzO4JRGB2uSuOAlNRNIcTIq1hDRXyYuQUcbTxiw2xO2eY2VOX5B6ULqYB+QF4bI L5N4o1VmThEfHJE3PCgdt3k+tRRLBRen2fSCgS6f87uPwIPZxZJsb9jK/jdgxu3M neNpYteFHW1c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=RKSyVSQWeOGiXS38FDWa4lToEaFNIVuC3e+Aanvhzxo=; b=gG1L8UDo c2wUptRmu27QmjgoZZmJJhn3QQj2bi8q99scWwwp46u1Ukzb1JP9DIRvH5s+iMOI mNcVV43HhUbBdgL0Fpn3J21LCEpWjGmwlCYjIFeVgLXFkebGohhBzsxGNbrGKmX7 NceA16rAQvFIc0tVEelsHFV/YT2S8sFrCOv+4C5saTv2gKreyx9KSv0cHdEd/6tC MpeLB8HBJ8A0r5JxyIhYkoWOmo/ti9wEm7RxSrVhz3JqqGKidl4+T+BwIW/3a1Jn mQVmgY61xshqWaOOFwspWr8eFZH435xYroSx1Wmd/Ypkf5GvozdjMkkUh6jNdGWB cLJUekZPi11SAw== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: DROSiDYF9vmIgmEHL5vHYwuh1GPhVMhwgHGvutVGjdHR 1495035969 Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3FAF17E7EE; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:46:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wiles, Keith" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:46:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1702829.beLIOYnONr@xps> In-Reply-To: <15608565-A4D5-48C0-BD0D-4A4D399BE3D9@intel.com> References: <1493810961-139469-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> <3696663.2JsLXSjzmN@xps> <15608565-A4D5-48C0-BD0D-4A4D399BE3D9@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Discuss plugin threading model for DPDK. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:46:10 -0000 17/05/2017 16:51, Wiles, Keith: > > > On May 17, 2017, at 4:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > OK to register CPU needs for services (including interrupts processing). > > > > Then we could take this opportunity to review how threads are managed. > > We will have three types of cores: > > - not used > > - reserved for services > > - used for polling / application processing > > It is fine to reserve/define CPU from DPDK point of view. > > > > Then DPDK launch threads on cores. Maybe we should allow the application > > to choose how threads are launched and managed. > > Keith was talking about a plugin approach for thread management I think. > Thomas, > So, not to hijack this thread or maybe I misunderstood your comment I changed the subject. > > Maybe we can look at the plugin model for a DPDK threading model to allow someone to use their own threading solution. > > Is this required or just another enhancement? It is another enhancement. As the service core would be a new API, we should check that it is compatible with a possible evolution of the underlying thread model. And I think it can be a good opportunity to draw a complete view of how DPDK could evolve regarding the thread model.