From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F3EA0613 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:55:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EE81BF9C; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:55:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC341BF9A for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:55:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2019 02:55:03 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,431,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="380482671" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.46]) by fmsmga006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2019 02:55:00 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:54:57 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Jim Harris Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com Message-ID: <20190826095457.GC1731@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <156586845525.44449.11798632267644345382.stgit@jrharri1-skx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <156586845525.44449.11798632267644345382.stgit@jrharri1-skx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] timer: use rte_mp_msg to pass TSC hz to secondary procs 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" On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:27:35AM -0700, Jim Harris wrote: > rte_eal_init() is much faster in secondary processes since > hugepages don't need to be zeroed. But there's still > non-trivial delays in the timer subsystem initialization > due to the 100ms sleep used to calculate TSC hz. So use > the rte_mp_msg framework to allow secondary processes > to get the TSC hz from the primary process. > > This cuts rte_eal_init() execution time in a secondary > process from 165ms to 66ms in my test program. > > Signed-off-by: Jim Harris > --- Rather than messaging, can we not just move the CPU frequency to being stored in a shared memory location? It's not something where different processes are going to need to be provided with different values.