From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Service lcores and Application lcores
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:08:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C3480F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170630125147.GA4578@jerin>
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:52 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@monjalon.net;
> Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:00:18 +0000
> > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Richardson, Bruce"
> > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "thomas@monjalon.net"
> > <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: Service lcores and Application lcores
<snip previous non-related items>
> > I don't think providing a remote-launch API is actually beneficial. Remote-launching a
> single service
> > is equivalent to adding that lcore as a service-core, and mapping it to just that single
> service.
> > The advantage of adding it as a service core, is future-proofing for if more services
> need to be added
> > to that core in future, and statistics of the service core infrastructure. A convenience
> API could be
> > provided to perform the core_add(), service_start(), enable_on_service() and
> core_start() APIs in one.
> >
> > Also, the remote_launch API doesn't solve the original problem - what if an application
> lcore wishes
> > to run one iteration of a service "manually". The remote_launch style API does not solve
> this problem.
>
> Agree with problem statement. But, remote_launch() operates on lcores not on
> not necessary on 1:1 mapped physical cores.
>
> By introducing "rte_service_iterate", We are creating a parallel infrastructure to
> run the service on non DPDK service lcores aka normal lcores.
> Is this really required? Is there any real advantage for
> application not use builtin service lcore infrastructure, rather than iterating over
> "rte_service_iterate" and run on normal lcores. If we really want to mux
> a physical core to N lcore, EAL already provides that in the form of threads.
>
> I think, providing too many parallel options for the same use case may be
> a overkill.
>
> Just my 2c.
The use-case that the rte_service_iterate() caters for is one where the application
wishes to run a service on an "ordinary app lcore", together with an application workload.
For example, the eventdev-scheduler and one worker can be run on the same lcore. If the schedule() running thread *must* be a service lcore, we would not be able to also use that lcore as an application worker core.
That was my motivation for adding this API, I do agree with you above; it is a second "parallel" method to run a service. I think there's enough value in enabling the use-case as per example above to add it.
Do you see enough value in the use-case above to add the API?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-30 13:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-29 14:36 Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-29 16:35 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 20:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 8:52 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 9:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 10:18 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 10:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-06-30 11:14 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:04 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:16 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-29 15:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-30 4:45 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 10:00 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 12:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:08 ` Van Haaren, Harry [this message]
2017-06-30 13:20 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 13:24 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2017-06-30 13:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C3480F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).