From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF9B37A6 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:08:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 06:08:31 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,286,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="103162451" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 06:08:30 -0700 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.211]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.26]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:08:26 +0100 From: "Van Haaren, Harry" To: Jerin Jacob CC: "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "Wiles, Keith" Thread-Topic: Service lcores and Application lcores Thread-Index: AdLw4cih5pwlzbSuRKKmF+/821WngAABjH8AABrSm4AAC4OFsAAFe56AAAJhj0A= Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20170629155707.GA15724@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170630044508.GA3735@jerin> <20170630125147.GA4578@jerin> In-Reply-To: <20170630125147.GA4578@jerin> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMTc2NTFhODAtZDlmYi00OTg1LTliNWItNTVlMWE5MzAzMzViIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjhoYmNoZG5haUFkeVdGTEFyOG5GaTVDeFVkNmlHVUZzR2p5aW9oSUorUk09In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Service lcores and Application lcores 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:08:33 -0000 > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:52 PM > To: Van Haaren, Harry > Cc: Richardson, Bruce ; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@= monjalon.net; > Wiles, Keith > Subject: Re: Service lcores and Application lcores >=20 > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:00:18 +0000 > > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" > > To: Jerin Jacob , "Richardson, Bruce" > > > > CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" > > , "Wiles, Keith" > > Subject: RE: Service lcores and Application lcores > > I don't think providing a remote-launch API is actually beneficial. Rem= ote-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 infrastructu= re. 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 i= f an application > lcore wishes > > to run one iteration of a service "manually". The remote_launch style A= PI does not solve > this problem. >=20 > Agree with problem statement. But, remote_launch() operates on lcores not= on > not necessary on 1:1 mapped physical cores. >=20 > By introducing "rte_service_iterate", We are creating a parallel infrastr= ucture 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 ite= rating 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 thre= ads. >=20 > I think, providing too many parallel options for the same use case may be > a overkill. >=20 > Just my 2c. The use-case that the rte_service_iterate() caters for is one where the app= lication wishes to run a service on an "ordinary app lcore", together with an applic= ation workload. For example, the eventdev-scheduler and one worker can be run on the same l= core. 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 i= s 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?