DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Andrzej Ostruszka [C]" <aostruszka@marvell.com>
Cc: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
	anatoly.burakov@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce IF proxy library
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:19:33 +0200
Message-ID: <20334513.huCnfhLgOn@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b0ca4614-bc95-e57e-c017-8dc74ecf12cf@marvell.com>

02/04/2020 15:48, Andrzej Ostruszka [C]:
> On 3/26/20 6:42 PM, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote:
> > On 3/25/20 12:11 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
> [...]
> >> And I am still strongly opposed to the callback method:
> > 
> > Noted - however for now I would like to keep them.  I don't have much
> > experience with this library so if they prove to be inadequate then we
> > will remove them.  Right now they seem to add some flexibility that I like:
> > - if something should be changed globally and once (and it is safe to do
> >   so!) then it can be done from the callback
> > - if something can be prepared once and consumed later by lcores then it
> >   can be done in callback and the callback returns 0 so that event is
> >   still queued and lcores (under assumption that queues are per lcore)
> >   pick up what has been prepared.
> 
> Morten
> 
> I've been thinking about this a bit and would like to know your (and
> others) opinion about following proposed enhancement.
> 
> Right now, how queues are used is left to the application decision (per
> lcore, per port, ...) - and I intend to keep it that way - but they are
> "match all".  What I mean by that is that (unlike callbacks where you
> have separate per event type) queue has no chance to be selective.
> 
> So if someone would like to go with queues only they he would have to
> coordinate between queues (or their "owners") which one does the
> handling of an event that supposedly should be handled only once.
> 
> Let's take this forwarding example - the queues are per lcore and each
> lcore keeps its own copy of ARP table (hash) so when the change is
> noticed the event is queued to all registered queue, each lcore updates
> its own copy and everything is OK.  However the routing is global (and
> right now is updated from callback) and if no callback is used for that
> then the event would be queued to all lcores and application would need
> to select the one which does the update.
> 
> Would that be easier/better to register queue together with a bitmask of
> event types that given queue is accepting?  Than during setup phase
> application would select just one queue to handle "global" events and
> the logic of event handling for lcores should be simplier.
> 
> Let me know what you think.

I think we want to avoid complicate design.
So let's choose between callback and message queue.
I vote for message queue because it can handle any situation,
and it allows to control the context of the event processing.
The other reason is that I believe we need message queueing for
other purposes in DPDK (ex: multi-process, telemetry).

You start thinking about complex message management.
And I start thinking about other usages of message queueing.
So I think it is the right time to introduce a generic messaging in DPDK.
Note: the IPC rte_mp should be built on top of such generic messaging.

If you agree, we can start a new email thread to better discuss
the generic messaging sub-system.
I describe here the 3 properties I have in mind:

1/ Message policy
One very important rule in DPDK is to let the control to the application.
So the messaging policy must be managed by the application via DPDK API.

2/ Message queue
It seems we should rely on ZeroMQ. Here is why:
http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#Why-We-Needed-ZeroMQ

3/ Message format
I am not sure whether we can manage with "simple strings", TLV,
or should we use something more complex like protobuf?



  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-03 17:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-06 16:41 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH " Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-06 16:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] lib: introduce IF Proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-31 12:36   ` Harman Kalra
2020-03-31 15:37     ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-01  5:29   ` Varghese, Vipin
2020-04-01 20:08     ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-08  3:04       ` Varghese, Vipin
2020-04-08 18:13         ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-03-06 16:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] if_proxy: add library documentation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-06 16:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] if_proxy: add simple functionality test Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-06 16:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] if_proxy: add example application Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-06 17:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Introduce IF proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-10 11:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-10 11:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: introduce IF Proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-07-02  0:34     ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-07-07 20:13       ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-07-08 16:07         ` Morten Brørup
2020-07-09  8:43           ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-07-22  0:40             ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-22  8:45               ` Jerin Jacob
2020-07-22  8:56                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-22  9:09                   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-07-22  9:27                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-07-22  9:54                       ` Jerin Jacob
2020-07-23 14:09                         ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-03-10 11:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] if_proxy: add library documentation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-10 11:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] if_proxy: add simple functionality test Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-10 11:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] if_proxy: add example application Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-25  8:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce IF proxy library David Marchand
2020-03-25 11:11     ` Morten Brørup
2020-03-26 17:42       ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-04-02 13:48         ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-03 17:19           ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2020-04-03 19:09             ` Jerin Jacob
2020-04-03 21:18               ` Morten Brørup
2020-04-03 21:57                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-04 10:18                   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-04-10 10:41                     ` Morten Brørup
2020-04-04 18:30             ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-04 19:58               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-10 10:03                 ` Morten Brørup
2020-04-10 12:28                   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-03-26 12:41     ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-03-30 19:23       ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-04-03 21:42   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-04 18:07     ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-04 19:51       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-16 16:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH " Stephen Hemminger
2020-04-16 16:49   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-04-16 17:04     ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-04-16 17:26       ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-16 17:27       ` Jerin Jacob
2020-04-16 17:12     ` Andrzej Ostruszka [C]
2020-04-16 17:19       ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-05-04  8:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-05-04  8:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] lib: introduce IF Proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-05-04  8:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] if_proxy: add library documentation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-05-04  8:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] if_proxy: add simple functionality test Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-05-04  8:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] if_proxy: add example application Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-06-22  9:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce IF proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-06-22  9:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] lib: introduce IF Proxy library Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-06-22  9:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] if_proxy: add library documentation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-06-22  9:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] if_proxy: add simple functionality test Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-06-22  9:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] if_proxy: add example application Andrzej Ostruszka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20334513.huCnfhLgOn@xps \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=aostruszka@marvell.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git