From: "Lipiec, Herakliusz" <herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Should we disallow running secondaries after primary has died?
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:56:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EB47986807B11C41AD0C5C13A40DE88360FC56@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d8246b4-3791-7922-f656-b69d7b4febee@intel.com>
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Burakov, Anatoly
> On 26-Jul-19 4:01 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:53:58 +0100
> > "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> NP to disallow it.
> >>> In fact, I think it would be easier for everyone just to drop
> >>> current DPDK MP model, and keep just standalone DPDK instances.
> >>
> >> That's the dream, but i don't think it'll ever come to fruition, at
> >> least not without a huge push from the community.
> >
> > There are several net appliances that require primary/secondary model.
> > I think initially during DPDK development it was sold as a feature to
> > the Network vendors.
> >
> > It might be possible to clamp down on what API's are supported by
> > secondary process. For example, disallowing any control operations start/stop
> etc.
> >
>
> We're getting slightly off topic here.
>
> The original question was about whether we want to support a use case where a
> secondary can initialize after primary process has died, and if we don't, whether
> we want to 1) outright deny initialization, or 2) allow it, but document as
> unsupported and discourage it.
Allowing something that is unsupported sounds like asking for trouble.
>
> The only use case i can think of that would require it is proc-info app.
> Dumping stuff from a dead process can be useful for debugging, so perhaps we
> can agree to put a warning at EAL startup, saying that this is not supported, but
> still allow processes to initialize.
>
If this is supposed to be useful for debugging then maybe allow only when some kind of flag is passed to eal?
This would also prevent from initializing the process incidentally.
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-26 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-26 9:05 Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-26 9:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-07-26 9:50 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-07-26 9:53 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-26 15:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-07-26 15:44 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-26 15:56 ` Lipiec, Herakliusz [this message]
2019-07-26 16:02 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-26 16:44 ` Lipiec, Herakliusz
2019-07-26 16:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-26 17:33 ` Lipiec, Herakliusz
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=EB47986807B11C41AD0C5C13A40DE88360FC56@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=herakliusz.lipiec@intel.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--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).