From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A83AA0096 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:13:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115052C54; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:13:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com (mail-pl1-f195.google.com [209.85.214.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DDF2C24 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:13:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id w24so7527912plp.2 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:13:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Ly35BXWTop8/zatIJMQsHlDx1XTsEjkSfe/Tw+MrYQ=; b=ahZhv8CIPiRRV5gCT1lrBBy2gF1OxPJFCvrGkMZ7YPTmkm7JgvipHnooswCw2ewFZn I0VbCNJqWvoteNJ6sFOYBfRiO2wvDTZI73H2UInbHEV2SnHgFvnNi0SMcnmq7W+VxZb1 hG8bFUTeY1wRyHq6TDIr8yvY03duNtHS+o1h1OyzQo/9kdW5Au/R2/a1hFKo84qTYsem iEy9Wi9vkUYogu1c99OrW+6VMqfzbxK86BNzoBl03NmsU0midyna1ElZW/jZJy8/TDNy cqRDQga7JZiqTke1gmlWrkBPwu/90Du1KD8is3PPifYZ1PrIb2t9JBD4rOR8sA3T+wZ+ 0hcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Ly35BXWTop8/zatIJMQsHlDx1XTsEjkSfe/Tw+MrYQ=; b=qYTHiswDpCPFPD8uqnh3gehl7/8h6JK/CJofp752gapu4vSnrhg7RPD6YXaTJIBdlT 81d1tPpgMRSsKyAjFIorXu3z/FzOmbJf3O26J9DoSbP7MU6rXAmU2ntAIlr6JEIU4jvG pm39Qnj1CF4+5OqkzDOSIRrY1oasVX2nSj1jWk19piGOYhP7ed7xN7wkPpZGQju0AouZ CTA7bp+ytJUyhbav18t2MRwXMbSdcbWss0LEEOkJ6xCCTCUoA1+X667k2i8RCWx6iiKU coz8VTOClQ1WCtrLfgs2TxKlEp7yHEHnOP8rNvPC/OV3X0cozkAfGGrms/ac3H0xXYYn 7vjw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWLlPBnP4VdI3VCvrxSTY2aUQx4MUcaFOm+jTIPEuiOrYn8tfo6 t0UlasSQyjs5KaV9uCAiYybbYw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqylVAEiM9dQB2swmZlD692RxUeEumDfNjrbij5yQ0OHHgDX/89QhC8dxoKdO8/QRq/Ctz2Mrw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:2ac3:: with SMTP id j61mr31199070plb.112.1554736419950; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shemminger-XPS-13-9360 (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j5sm23000891pfe.15.2019.04.08.08.13.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:13:36 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: David Marchand Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , Ray Kinsella , Thomas Monjalon , techboard@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , dev , Kevin Traynor Message-ID: <20190408081336.4ae05eb4@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> In-Reply-To: References: <455a61b4-891d-eaaf-d784-2be884bcacbd@intel.com> <7166381.CkH77a7QuE@xps> <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> <6a9bf695-b287-9e5e-358c-d6c3f93db045@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability 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" Message-ID: <20190408151336.QRFZl65CSeXwKe9--kzMWml1NM0zv8O_x6M1HVKJxV8@z> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:38:55 +0200 David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:03 PM Burakov, Anatoly > wrote: > > > On 08-Apr-19 2:58 PM, David Marchand wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM Burakov, Anatoly > > > > wrote: > > > > > > As a concrete proposal, my number one dream would be to see > > > multiprocess > > > gone. I also recall desire for "DPDK to be more lightweight", and i > > > maintain that DPDK *cannot* be lightweight if we are to support > > > multiprocess - we can have one or the other, but not both. However, > > > realistically, i don't think dropping multiprocess is ever going to > > > happen - not only it is too entrenched in DPDK use cases, it is > > > actually > > > quite useful despite its flaws. > > > > > > > > > Well, honestly, I'd like to hear about this. > > > What are the real usecases for multi process support? > > > Do we have even a single opensource project that uses it? > > > > > > > I'm aware of a few closed source usages of multiprocess. I also think > > current versions of collectd rely on secondary process (there's been a > > Telemetry API added to avoid that, but AFAIK the support for Telemetry > > is not upstream in collectd yet), and so do/would any dump-style > > applications - in fact, we ourselves include one such application in our > > codebase (pdump, proc-info, etc.). > > > > Sorry, I don't want to highjack this thread, I can start a separate thread > if people feel like it. > If we go with stabilisation, we must be careful that we want to support the > features. > > So about multiprocess, again, in those closed source projects you know of, > what are the usecases? > > For what we provide in dpdk pdump, proc-info, referring to oneself is not > that convincing to me as I don't use those tools. > > I don't see what we could not achieve the same with a control thread > running in the dpdk process and handling commands. > It would be open to the outside via a more standard channel, like a UNIX > socket or something like this. > If we need to declare a dynamic channel, it can be constructed as an > extension of the existing standard channel: we can open something like a > POSIX shm and push things in it. > Was this explored ? > > Yes, there are several closed source applications using multi-process. But the problem with that is no one tests with all the drivers, api's and configurations in DPDK.