From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710914C8C for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:12:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Mar 2018 02:12:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,370,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="27654069" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.52]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2018 02:11:59 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:11:58 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:11:58 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Tan, Jianfeng" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Van Haaren, Harry" Message-ID: <20180328091158.GA5544@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <3396888.LEadjR7LpM@xps> <2563064.olffpIeeN1@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2563064.olffpIeeN1@xps> Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] eal: add asynchronous request API to DPDK IPC 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, 28 Mar 2018 09:12:27 -0000 On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:29:35AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 28/03/2018 04:08, Tan, Jianfeng: > > Hi Thomas , > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > 27/03/2018 15:59, Anatoly Burakov: > > > > Under the hood, we create a separate thread to deal with replies to > > > > asynchronous requests, that will just wait to be notified by the > > > > main thread, or woken up on a timer. > > > > > > I really don't like that a library is creating a thread. > > > We don't even know where the thread is created (which core). > > > Can it be a rte_service? or in the interrupt thread? > > > > Agree that we'd better not adding so many threads in a library. > > > > I was considering to merge all the threads into the interrupt thread, however, we don't have an interrupt thread in freebsd. Further, we don't implement alarm API in freebsd. That's why I tend to current implementation, and optimize it later. > > I would prefer we improve the current code now instead of polluting more > with more uncontrolled threads. > +1 I think it would be worthwhile adding an interrupt thread to BSD, and it should not be a massive amount of work. Having a single interrupt thread has a lot of benefits, I think. /Bruce