From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF9B37A6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:08:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38])
 by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 06:08:31 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,286,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="103162451"
Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159])
 by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 06:08:30 -0700
Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.211]) by
 IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.26]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002;
 Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:08:26 +0100
From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
CC: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
 <dev@dpdk.org>, "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Wiles, Keith"
 <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: Service lcores and Application lcores
Thread-Index: AdLw4cih5pwlzbSuRKKmF+/821WngAABjH8AABrSm4AAC4OFsAAFe56AAAJhj0A=
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:08:26 +0000
Message-ID: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C3480F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C33E88@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170629155707.GA15724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170630044508.GA3735@jerin>
 <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C344F6@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170630125147.GA4578@jerin>
In-Reply-To: <20170630125147.GA4578@jerin>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMTc2NTFhODAtZDlmYi00OTg1LTliNWItNTVlMWE5MzAzMzViIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjhoYmNoZG5haUFkeVdGTEFyOG5GaTVDeFVkNmlHVUZzR2p5aW9oSUorUk09In0=
x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 10.0.102.7
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Service lcores and Application lcores
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:08:33 -0000

> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:52 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@=
monjalon.net;
> Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:00:18 +0000
> > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Richardson, Bruce"
> >  <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "thomas@monjalon.net"
> >  <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: Service lcores and Application lcores

<snip previous non-related items>

> > I don't think providing a remote-launch API is actually beneficial. Rem=
ote-launching a
> single service
> > is equivalent to adding that lcore as a service-core, and mapping it to=
 just that single
> service.
> > The advantage of adding it as a service core, is future-proofing for if=
 more services
> need to be added
> > to that core in future, and statistics of the service core infrastructu=
re. A convenience
> API could be
> > provided to perform the core_add(), service_start(), enable_on_service(=
) and
> core_start() APIs in one.
> >
> > Also, the remote_launch API doesn't solve the original problem - what i=
f an application
> lcore wishes
> > to run one iteration of a service "manually". The remote_launch style A=
PI does not solve
> this problem.
>=20
> Agree with problem statement. But, remote_launch() operates on lcores not=
 on
> not necessary on 1:1 mapped physical cores.
>=20
> By introducing "rte_service_iterate", We are creating a parallel infrastr=
ucture to
> run the service on non DPDK service lcores aka normal lcores.
> Is this really required? Is there  any real advantage for
> application not use builtin service lcore infrastructure, rather than ite=
rating over
> "rte_service_iterate" and run on normal lcores. If we really want to mux
> a physical core to N lcore, EAL already provides that in the form of thre=
ads.
>=20
> I think, providing too many parallel options for the same use case may be
> a overkill.
>=20
> Just my 2c.


The use-case that the rte_service_iterate() caters for is one where the app=
lication
wishes to run a service on an "ordinary app lcore", together with an applic=
ation workload.

For example, the eventdev-scheduler and one worker can be run on the same l=
core. If the schedule() running thread *must* be a service lcore, we would =
not be able to also use that lcore as an application worker core.

That was my motivation for adding this API, I do agree with you above; it i=
s a second "parallel" method to run a service. I think there's enough value=
 in enabling the use-case as per example above to add it.


Do you see enough value in the use-case above to add the API?