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 8BC13A046B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:45:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9911C47B; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:44:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F221B9A0 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:44:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2019 08:44:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,311,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="369567023" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.25.220]) ([10.252.25.220]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2019 08:44:54 -0700 To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon References: <29cf5458-8459-0187-13b1-44277283fc93@intel.com> <20190726093951.GA1629@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5BA83@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <06bb50da-e56f-3bf0-920f-001480150f5d@intel.com> <20190726080116.68d766a3@hermes.lan> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <8d8246b4-3791-7922-f656-b69d7b4febee@intel.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:44:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190726080116.68d766a3@hermes.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Should we disallow running secondaries after primary has died? 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 26-Jul-19 4:01 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:53:58 +0100 > "Burakov, Anatoly" wrote: > >>> >>> NP to disallow it. >>> In fact, I think it would be easier for everyone just to drop current DPDK MP model, >>> and keep just standalone DPDK instances. >> >> That's the dream, but i don't think it'll ever come to fruition, at >> least not without a huge push from the community. > > There are several net appliances that require primary/secondary model. > I think initially during DPDK development it was sold as a feature to the > Network vendors. > > It might be possible to clamp down on what API's are supported by > secondary process. For example, disallowing any control operations start/stop etc. > We're getting slightly off topic here. The original question was about whether we want to support a use case where a secondary can initialize after primary process has died, and if we don't, whether we want to 1) outright deny initialization, or 2) allow it, but document as unsupported and discourage it. The only use case i can think of that would require it is proc-info app. Dumping stuff from a dead process can be useful for debugging, so perhaps we can agree to put a warning at EAL startup, saying that this is not supported, but still allow processes to initialize. -- Thanks, Anatoly