From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A90A0350; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 14:15:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1F91D5DC; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 14:15:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.197]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A117C1D5D8 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 14:15:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 86.246.31.132 Received: from u256.net (lfbn-idf2-1-566-132.w86-246.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.246.31.132]) (Authenticated sender: grive@u256.net) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2FB81C000C; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 14:15:30 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan?= Rivet To: Bruce Richardson Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200605121530.svt7tksyqjj6n42g@u256.net> References: <20200604210200.25405-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20200604180409.4a2831c3@hermes.lan> <20200605104247.kilea5nfktlf7mlm@u256.net> <20200605112820.GD1552@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200605112820.GD1552@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] replace master/slave with primary/secondary 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 05/06/20 12:28 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:43:00PM +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > On 04/06/20 18:04 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > I have a full patch that replaces the master/slave lcore > > > naming (widely used in DPDK) with a better primary/secondary naming. > > > > > > For now this is just a trial balloon to see what the impact would > > > look like. The change mostly automated so likely that things > > > are broken. > > > > > > It is hard to break a change like this down, and still > > > keep git bisection clean. > > > > > > It keeps rte_master_lcore_id and RTE_FOREACH_SLAVE as deprecated > > > items so that user code can still be built but they will be motivated > > > to change. > > > > > > Here is a sample of what it would look like: > > > > > > > I think PRIMARY is a poor choice to describe the control thread. PRIMARY > > is often used to designate the active element currently doing the work. > > SECONDARY threads are also active threads doing equal dataplane work. > > > > Another issue I see with primary / secondary is the ambiguity with > > multi-process in DPDK. Doc readers could get confused about where a > > primary / secondary thread is executed. > > > > I think we could use instead DPDK-specific terminology. The lcore > > organization is a little specific, with an lcore that does most init work > > and spawns the others, but then runs the application like all others. > > > > I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader > > is still a member of the team and will participate in the work. > > > > Leader / worker? > > > No sure I like the term "Leader" for a thread, but "worker" is an ok name. > How about "init thread" and "worker threads"? > > /Bruce Init was actually my first idea :) . I thought leader could be more palatable in some documentation, but after some tests I think init thread could work better after all. I was thinking init / spawned threads first, but worker is ok. -- Gaëtan