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 C1A5EA059F; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990391D52A; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586BA1D521 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:28:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id i3so1545471ioo.13 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:28:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RjYL3j12UxFNXBB/5Y6ymiHZ6fbSSMRdqjwZKVjvXKU=; b=aQI7/7H3Q0HkVoZ12bqGrvYMK5aRGcjpLNvfEHwVittCU45weRJte9lbu/lIGZvrTg Fzau5bg7BzGx5c3znr1VYo6uKTsIE/YydOor1d/t9C6KIasoyOiOPy1j5i4mQkcQ3gIu 7CCuSuqLbOw760omREvM5GkqRdOHrXUqHQBVFerHD4glClcLNgKFrw5/eSKowBaGogMu 3UUmmM756IsusRO7qM1WPLEbl8YYn0PMHapW+5IXHs6nw3UCNIKIvnVX5i933S9BpB1A tJijsP9vu1GsCcPaTGOWwVKSxZUohTq8qF9e3g3Q7i7cxlDcOyxdP+lOGTHUdLxdfxQi qUDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RjYL3j12UxFNXBB/5Y6ymiHZ6fbSSMRdqjwZKVjvXKU=; b=aQuQ4TFRrx7q1Ul6QaVOyzkGnfyFFOJV7HKp+ku6OFXXDo2lKLPn0upct/zIaideMN TEVIfSB386NHbqnuNlsFxBGVVAVKeEO+3DfSb2UsCG4i5pe73mD2gz5ZDNpWr44Rjmq1 YtswOtADLU3JwjTJhkV+Cz47IVvPfRj0OBwKRtluH78wbDGAZ8MOp7CS8fUlQXuJpPYM 1IO6Yq0ikEu3Ipp6+WGUpJkG/riwH8Ql10qSZZWoh3gNdRZDZNGllqLVN7NWgribKM7p 8LmRoGk6jcUcLKhZ2D0IWNtojKgYT/GJ0BeLjK5XY/R0BIOfSpC923ekv/5/ldBxnhtB PS0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ8dbpjAW50Edu3KJL4pc3Cuyto0DKudG9Xu/fZF2xjzGQm8Mo0 LrGbFsw7ul1jIUB+CyBERx8moHxJh/v+rNTPxpE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLDIszNz4OyKzqyZc20+SK55pwKayg5CsBstqV3yEqd3HNUlLwsS2OYB135L19QLYTze5RvL4uTsHTjeJ+AAwo= X-Received: by 2002:a02:9a0d:: with SMTP id b13mr4409923jal.60.1586521736675; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:28:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200306164104.15528-1-aostruszka@marvell.com> <20334513.huCnfhLgOn@xps> <2580933.jp2sp48Hzj@xps> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60F4B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60F4B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:58:40 +0530 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Andrzej Ostruszka [C]" , David Marchand , dpdk-dev , "Richardson, Bruce" , Anatoly Burakov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce IF proxy library 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 Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Morten Br=C3=B8rup wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 9:58 PM > > > > 04/04/2020 20:30, Andrzej Ostruszka [C]: > > > Thomas, > > > > > > I have replied to the other mail, here I just want to confirm, that > > I'm > > > fine with the proposed "general messaging" which other libraries (IF > > > Proxy including) could utilize. > > > > > > See also below. > > > > > > On 4/3/20 7:19 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 02/04/2020 15:48, Andrzej Ostruszka [C]: > > > >> On 3/26/20 6:42 PM, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote: > > > [...] > > > >> Would that be easier/better to register queue together with a > > bitmask of > > > >> event types that given queue is accepting? Than during setup > > phase > > > >> application would select just one queue to handle "global" events > > and > > > >> the logic of event handling for lcores should be simplier. > > > >> > > > >> Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > I think we want to avoid complicate design. > > > > So let's choose between callback and message queue. > > > > I vote for message queue because it can handle any situation, > > > > and it allows to control the context of the event processing. > > > > The other reason is that I believe we need message queueing for > > > > other purposes in DPDK (ex: multi-process, telemetry). > > > > > > > > You start thinking about complex message management. > > > > And I start thinking about other usages of message queueing. > > > > So I think it is the right time to introduce a generic messaging in > > DPDK. > > > > Note: the IPC rte_mp should be built on top of such generic > > messaging. > > > > > > Do you have also inter-lcore communication in mind here? Or just > > > "external" world to "some DPDK controller/dispatcher" and how that is > > > passed to other cores is an application writer problem. > > > > I was thinking at communication with: > > - DPDK event from random context > > - secondary process > > - external application > > - remote application > > > > In all cases, I thought the message receiver would be the master core. > > That would also be my assumption. IMO, DPDK should not dictate that. The library can give API to for housekee= ping. It is up to the application to call on DPDK isolated cores or from the control thread. I think, we need to dictate only it should be used by a single consumer.