From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E95720F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 00:11:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A5020987; Tue, 16 May 2017 18:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 May 2017 18:11:12 -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=zBqhzkU5wQWTwXT NPfp8CQs96CrsIHOR2zWpXl7SMuM=; b=DOZtEj40lxUMv1t+IpMm1OXyqA1cWPL j7oU+sTHNkqOIl0VpZ4fmms3mbIekmOzDSrDhb/iuYt7oW11VuwoDlAHZkP5dArK abe8hczMx+sPurCdboaactiaxngL2ZaXtBzbNiuW9AbL05eiHKNC9sO4VaJvl6iU xYus6zEyP1W8= 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=zBqhzkU5wQWTwXTNPfp8CQs96CrsIHOR2zWpXl7SMuM=; b=cLHPML68 1P6ziVS2cgQu4Wjn/gYnICpId+HZFzR89VCoahfhKCmWAC/rQOLb/n6312pTsTDP RHDFOpgkNHrgjBt/OJ7v4cZgnUtnDyHyxgRQB5ubpZstRNT/t57hGwjMQ6XLI7m0 VnoLqPPD986Qhyj2H63kgBSVYjIoOhqqKTGTs8N2CqzLRqJkxMqwL6rgOjNoLKLd IYUg3xi1RQFud14PRXqym5j0vhamqyJ97Kg6n9kEuPwbV+ycps3AZjBKGWgtwc1l m9CHifN6rtQbep11muByDWhiJBHTw81ha3FZ/LU+pPnscTe2KcQULqECu2ZEKHYV hTGCihUBDBt5Vw== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: /ZvsG4MptZudgaJjIebWpi5fKBpiNkXaJN/AuBgKiCbW 1494972671 Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B70FA24965; Tue, 16 May 2017 18:11:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Harry van Haaren Cc: dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, nipun.gupta@nxp.com, narender.vangati@intel.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, gage.eads@intel.com Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:11:10 +0200 Message-ID: <5129240.aMJQgb24zL@xps> In-Reply-To: <1493810961-139469-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> References: <1493810961-139469-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Service Cores concept 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: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:11:12 -0000 03/05/2017 13:29, Harry van Haaren: > The concept is to allow a software function register itself with EAL as > a "service", which requires CPU time to perform its duties. Multiple > services can be registered in an application, if more than one service > exists. The application can retrieve a list of services, and decide how > many "service cores" to use. The number of service cores is removed > from the application usage, and they are mapped to services based on > an application supplied coremask. > > The application now continues as normal, without having to manually > schedule and implement arbitration of CPU time for the SW services. I think it should not be the DPDK responsibility to schedule threads. The mainloops and scheduling are application design choices. If I understand well the idea of your proposal, it is a helper for the application to configure the thread scheduling of known services. So I think we could add interrupt processing and other thread creations in this concept. Could we also embed the rte_eal_mp_remote_launch() calls in this concept?