From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mousuanming@huawei.com>
Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F8A1B593
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:49:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60])
by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A2EBA7EE69305D96B83B
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.131.206) by DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com
(10.3.19.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0;
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:07 +0800
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, "Varghese, Vipin"
<vipin.varghese@intel.com>, "Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
CC: "'dev@dpdk.org'" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1556210141-43153-1-git-send-email-mousuanming@huawei.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33DEB0@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<25e85f37-231e-d303-8d7a-e3addd6534d5@huawei.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33E2C8@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33E2E3@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<ee413010-8b73-c1e0-90b7-98586af2f94b@huawei.com>
<f4e09994-edb1-9a1d-70ed-74299edc93c0@intel.com>
<ed0f408c-0c6d-595a-22d9-996a6c8bdacf@huawei.com>
<bed0c61c-d1ab-dc59-bc5c-35b663846b33@intel.com>
From: Suanming.Mou <mousuanming@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <0de4a0d5-85fa-8290-20af-62fdf66e2e94@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:05 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bed0c61c-d1ab-dc59-bc5c-35b663846b33@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: [10.177.131.206]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/pdump: exits once primary app exited
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:49:11 -0000
On 2019/4/26 22:39, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 26-Apr-19 3:32 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/26 21:46, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>> On 26-Apr-19 1:08 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/4/26 18:56, Varghese, Vipin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will leave this suggestion open for comments from the maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestion. I have also tried to add an slave core
>>>> to monitor the primary status this afternoon. It works.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt if it can be add an new option as you suggested, but which
>>>> will also require people who complain the exiting to add an extra
>>>> slave core for that.
>>>>
>>>> Please waiting for the new patch in one or two days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can use alarm API to check for this regularly. It's not like the
>>> interrupt thread is doing much anyway. Just set alarm to fire every
>>> N seconds, and that's it.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the suggestion. Yes, that seems the best
>> solution. Just tested it roughly as the code below:
>>
>> +static void monitor_primary(void *arg __rte_unused)
>> +{
>> + if (quit_signal)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL))
>> + rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> + else
>> + quit_signal = 1;
>> +
>> + return;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void
>> dump_packets(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> uint32_t lcore_id = 0;
>>
>> + if (exit_with_primary)
>> + rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> +
>>
>>
>> I will prepare the patch with option exit_with_primary.
>>
>
> Actually, i'm curious if this really does work. Unless my knowledge is
> out of date, interrupt thread doesn't work in secondary processes, and
> by extension neither should the alarm API...
Uh... If I understand correctly, the alarm API has used in the secondary
before.
Refer to handle_primary_request()....
From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795A3A05D3
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:49:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DE21B6CA;
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:49:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F8A1B593
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:49:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60])
by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A2EBA7EE69305D96B83B
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.131.206) by DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com
(10.3.19.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0;
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:07 +0800
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, "Varghese, Vipin"
<vipin.varghese@intel.com>, "Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan@intel.com>
CC: "'dev@dpdk.org'" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1556210141-43153-1-git-send-email-mousuanming@huawei.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33DEB0@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<25e85f37-231e-d303-8d7a-e3addd6534d5@huawei.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33E2C8@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D33E2E3@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
<ee413010-8b73-c1e0-90b7-98586af2f94b@huawei.com>
<f4e09994-edb1-9a1d-70ed-74299edc93c0@intel.com>
<ed0f408c-0c6d-595a-22d9-996a6c8bdacf@huawei.com>
<bed0c61c-d1ab-dc59-bc5c-35b663846b33@intel.com>
From: Suanming.Mou <mousuanming@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <0de4a0d5-85fa-8290-20af-62fdf66e2e94@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:49:05 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bed0c61c-d1ab-dc59-bc5c-35b663846b33@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: [10.177.131.206]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/pdump: exits once primary app exited
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190426144905.UnhqTkrHrxxr3XNBpjNsukrxBwteCHdMhkgSghSOmeY@z>
On 2019/4/26 22:39, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 26-Apr-19 3:32 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/26 21:46, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>> On 26-Apr-19 1:08 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/4/26 18:56, Varghese, Vipin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will leave this suggestion open for comments from the maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestion. I have also tried to add an slave core
>>>> to monitor the primary status this afternoon. It works.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt if it can be add an new option as you suggested, but which
>>>> will also require people who complain the exiting to add an extra
>>>> slave core for that.
>>>>
>>>> Please waiting for the new patch in one or two days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can use alarm API to check for this regularly. It's not like the
>>> interrupt thread is doing much anyway. Just set alarm to fire every
>>> N seconds, and that's it.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the suggestion. Yes, that seems the best
>> solution. Just tested it roughly as the code below:
>>
>> +static void monitor_primary(void *arg __rte_unused)
>> +{
>> + if (quit_signal)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL))
>> + rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> + else
>> + quit_signal = 1;
>> +
>> + return;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void
>> dump_packets(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> uint32_t lcore_id = 0;
>>
>> + if (exit_with_primary)
>> + rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
>> +
>>
>>
>> I will prepare the patch with option exit_with_primary.
>>
>
> Actually, i'm curious if this really does work. Unless my knowledge is
> out of date, interrupt thread doesn't work in secondary processes, and
> by extension neither should the alarm API...
Uh... If I understand correctly, the alarm API has used in the secondary
before.
Refer to handle_primary_request()....