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 D4C801B03D for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:15:27 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2018 03:15:27 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,411,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="24640038" Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.28]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2018 03:15:26 -0800 Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.3) by irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:22 +0000 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.236]) by irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:22 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Thomas Monjalon , Matan Azrad CC: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan_Rivet?= , "Wu, Jingjing" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Neil Horman , "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Thread-Index: AQHTlcQj+ZywAbUDwkKUgUrHghrd8aOEbsNA Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725886283602@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1516293317-30748-8-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <8784959.KALqi1c4OM@xps> In-Reply-To: <8784959.KALqi1c4OM@xps> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZWRhYWM1NDEtZjc0Zi00Nzc3LWE5NzUtMzJhMDVkNzhkODZhIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IkhFTkVCN29ocnljNmZzNVlURXM3ZnpBcUtDY1hKYk9JeUw2YUlKMHdZYkU9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership 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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:28 -0000 Hi everyone, >=20 > 25/01/2018 10:36, Matan Azrad: > > Gaetan, Konstantin, Thomas > > > > Any response to my suggestion below? > > > > From: Matan Azrad > > > Suggestion: > > > > > > 2 system owners. > > > APP_OWNER - 1. > > > NO_OWNER - 0. > > > > > > And allowing for more owners as now. > > > > > > 1. Every port creation will set the owner for NO_OWNER (as now). > > > 2. There is option for all dpdk entities to take owner of NO_OWNER p= orts all > > > the time(as now). > > > 3. In some point in the end of EAL init: set all the NO_OWNER to > > > APP_OWNER(for V6). What will happen if we have 2 (or more process) sharing the same device? How we will distinguish what APP_OWNER we are talking about? Shouldn't default_owner be unique per process? > > > 4. Change the old iterator to iterate over APP_OWNER ports(for V6). If I get it right it means no changes in tetpmd, correct? > > > > > > What do you think? >=20 > Reminder for everybody: there is no issue if no hotplug. > There is a race condition with hotplug. > Hotplug is not managed by EAL yet, but there is a temporary hotplug > management in failsafe. > So until now, the issue is seen only with hotplug in failsafe. >=20 > Your suggestion makes no change for applications, > and fix the ownership issue for failsafe. > And later, if an application wants to support generic hotplug properly > (when it will be generally available in DPDK), > the application should use the ownership API. > Right? >=20 > I think it is a good compromise. I still think it would be good if future hotplug support will be transparen= t to existing apps (no/minimal changes). But I suppose we can discuss it later, when will have hotplug patches. Konstantin