From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g2t2355.austin.hpe.com (g2t2355.austin.hpe.com [15.233.44.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4962C4D for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:24:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from g2t2360.austin.hpecorp.net (g2t2360.austin.hpecorp.net [16.196.225.135]) by g2t2355.austin.hpe.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8D86F; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from masterns.labs.hpecorp.net (mailhub.labs.hpecorp.net [16.111.40.8]) by g2t2360.austin.hpecorp.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B1049; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bougret.labs.hpecorp.net (bougret.labs.hpecorp.net [16.111.8.16]) by masterns.labs.hpecorp.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id u9EGOZY8017233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:24:35 -0700 Received: from jt by bougret.labs.hpecorp.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bv5Hf-0006Wv-2v; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:24:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:24:35 -0700 From: Jean Tourrilhes To: Olivier Matz Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand , Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Message-ID: <20161014162434.GA24606@labs.hpe.com> References: <20161012200445.GA10029@labs.hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto Address: HP Labs, MS1184, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. E-mail: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: Add sanity check when secondary link in less mempools than primary X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:24:38 -0000 On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi Jean, > > I'm not really fan of this. I think the configuration and build system > of primary and secondaries should be the same to avoid this kind of > issues. You are not going to convert all existing applications to the DPDK build system. I believe that restricting the build system is irrealistic, it would restrict DPDK secondary only to toy examples. Note that libdpdk.a is tricky to use outside the DPDK build system and require some quirks even for primary applications (see Snort DPDK patches). I would say that DPDK is not very friendly to foreign applications and their build system in general. > Some other issues may happen if the configuration is different, > for instance the size of structures may be different. Impossible, because then libdpdk.a would not work. Remember we are talking of using the exact same libdpdk.a in primary and secondary, and therefore any structure used in libdpdk.a has to match. And the structures used in the app has to match libdpdk.a as well. > There is already a lot of mess due to primary/secondary at many places > in the code, I'm not sure adding more is really desirable. Yes, one solution is obviously to get rid of secondary entirely. Personally, I believe it's pretty close to working, the number of issues I found is manageable. I have a complex application (Snort) working that way without any issues. If DPDK wants to support secondary, you might as well make it work for everybody. We could discuss better solutions to those issues. For example, the tailq subsystem has a better solution. But, I'm not going to waste time if secondary is deprecated. > Regards, > Olivier Regards, Jean