Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/pdump: exits once primary app exited

[Suanming.Mou <mousuanming@huawei.com>]

On 2019/4/26 22:39, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 26-Apr-19 3:32 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/26 21:46, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>> On 26-Apr-19 1:08 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/4/26 18:56, Varghese, Vipin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will leave this suggestion open for comments from the maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestion. I have also tried to add an slave core 
>>>> to monitor the primary status this afternoon.  It works.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt if it can be add an new option as you suggested, but which 
>>>> will also require people who complain the exiting to add an extra 
>>>> slave core for that.
>>>>
>>>> Please waiting for the new patch in one or two days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can use alarm API to check for this regularly. It's not like the 
>>> interrupt thread is doing much anyway. Just set alarm to fire every 
>>> N seconds, and that's it.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the suggestion. Yes, that seems the best 
>> solution.  Just tested it roughly as the code below:
>>
>> +static void monitor_primary(void *arg __rte_unused)
>> +{
>> +    if (quit_signal)
>> +        return;
>> +
>> +    if (rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL))
>> +        rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> +    else
>> +        quit_signal = 1;
>> +
>> +    return;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static inline void
>>   dump_packets(void)
>>   {
>>       int i;
>>       uint32_t lcore_id = 0;
>>
>> +    if (exit_with_primary)
>> +        rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> +
>>
>>
>> I will prepare the patch with option exit_with_primary.
>>
>
> Actually, i'm curious if this really does work. Unless my knowledge is 
> out of date, interrupt thread doesn't work in secondary processes, and 
> by extension neither should the alarm API...

Uh... If I understand correctly, the alarm API has used in the secondary 
before.

Refer to handle_primary_request()....