From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mo2.mail-out.ovh.net (5.mo2.mail-out.ovh.net [87.98.181.248]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC8C9DE for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:27:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail422.ha.ovh.net (gw6.ovh.net [213.251.189.206]) by mo2.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C5D9FF9712 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:28:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2013 10:28:53 +0200 Received: from lneuilly-152-23-9-75.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO pcdeff) (ff@ozog.com@193.252.40.75) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2013 10:28:51 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Fr=E9d=E9ric_Ozog?= To: "'Jason Vassbender'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:27:10 +0100 Message-ID: <035f01cef0ca$a0d7a470$e286ed50$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac7wcbpttQdQzQDuTmeVkspOLq3m5wAVvi7g Content-Language: fr X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 16700191843903199449 X-Ovh-Remote: 193.252.40.75 (lneuilly-152-23-9-75.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeiledrkeehucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.501624/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeiledrkeehucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Decoupling DPDK from EAL X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 08:27:43 -0000 Hi, I just completed such a consulting mission for a customer. They were = using libpcap as the network back end and the most challenging hurdle was to transform a single threaded capture architecture to a multi-threaded one with DPDK. The other key take away, is that DPDK capture helps to get = only 20% of the 20 times performance boost I managed to achieve: most of the latency is due to "application" and other internal communication = mechanisms. So I agree that DPDK is not light, but I think most of the power of DPDK comes from EAL thread management and "IPC"...=20 Having said all that, I may have missed a critical point, so, what is = the specific major hurdle you see in the integration? Fran=E7ois-Fr=E9d=E9ric > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] De la part de Jason = Vassbender > Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 3 d=E9cembre 2013 22:51 > =C0=A0: dev@dpdk.org > Objet=A0: [dpdk-dev] Decoupling DPDK from EAL >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I am trying to integrate DPDK into an existing application in order to > improve packet processing latency, but it is proving rather difficult > because of DPDK's dependency on EAL's thread management and bootstrap > mechanism. Our application already has its own framework for managing > threads and their affinities/priorities, IPC, timers and its own = bootstrap > mechanism (not necessarily via command line arguments), we wish to > integrate DPDK as an alternative network back-end, but it wants to to = take > over our entire way of doing things. >=20 > Are there any plans to decouple DPDK's core functionality away from = EAL so > that it can be more easily integrated into existing applications? >=20 > -Jason