From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC25B112 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2014 07:33:22 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,965,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="440312910" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2014 07:33:20 -0700 Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.66) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:33:17 +0100 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.58]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.197]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:33:17 +0100 From: "Richardson, Bruce" To: Neil Horman Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] distributor: new packet distributor library Thread-Index: AQHPeyaGPXLCfjEU5U6ySUAwMGZJ25tXgkCAgAbWZ0CAANaagIAAS4xg Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:33:16 +0000 Message-ID: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA318D9@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1400580057-30155-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1401358338-23455-3-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20140529134823.GD25784@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA31639@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <20140603110125.GA20038@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20140603110125.GA20038@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] distributor: new packet distributor library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:33:12 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:01 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] distributor: new packet distributo= r library >=20 > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:40:04PM +0000, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:48 AM > > > To: Richardson, Bruce > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] distributor: new packet distri= butor > library > > > > > > > + > > > > +/* flush the distributor, so that there are no outstanding packets= in flight > or > > > > + * queued up. */ > > > Its not clear to me that this is a distributor only function. You mo= dified the > > > comments to indicate that lcores can't preform double duty as both a = worker > > > and > > > a distributor, which is fine, but it implies that there is a clear di= stinction > > > between functions that are 'worker' functions and 'distributor' funct= ions. > > > While its for the most part clear-ish (workers call rte_distributor_g= et_pkt and > > > rte_distibutor_return_pkt, distibutors calls rte_distributor_create/p= rocess. > > > This is in a grey area. the analogy I'm thinking of here are kernel > workqueues. > > > Theres a specific workqueue thread that processes the workqueue, but = any > > > process > > > can sync or flush the workqueue, leading me to think this process can= be > called > > > by a worker lcore. > > > > I can update comments here further, but I was hoping the way things wer= e > right now was clear enough. In the header and C files, I have the functio= ns > explicitly split up into distributor and worker function sets, with a big= block of > text in the header at the start of each section explaining the threading = use of the > follow functions. > > > Very well, we can let use be the determinant here. We can leave it as is= , and > if reports of lockups come in, we can change it, otherwise no harm done. >=20 Since I'm not a big fan of the "let's wait for the lock-ups" approach, I'll= add in a single-line addition to each function's doxygen comment that shou= ld make its way into the official API docs. :-)