From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CAD48DA4 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:08:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2018 07:08:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,301,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="39062332" Received: from tanjianf-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.249.235.3]) ([10.249.235.3]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2018 07:08:26 -0700 To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev@dpdk.org References: <1520177405-59091-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1524156618-81402-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1524156618-81402-2-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net From: "Tan, Jianfeng" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:08:25 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/5] eal: bring forward multi-process channel init 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, 20 Apr 2018 14:08:31 -0000 On 4/20/2018 4:16 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 19-Apr-18 5:50 PM, Jianfeng Tan wrote: >> Adjust the init sequence: put mp channel init before bus scan >> so that we can init the vdev bus through mp channel in the >> secondary process before the bus scan. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jianfeng Tan >> Reviewed-by: Qi Zhang >> --- > > Hi Jianfeng, > > Just a general question. I can't recall if we've discussed this > internally, I don't think we once discussed this. > but does this new IPC-based vdev bus scan trigger any memory allocations? No, we don't. > So far bus scans were well-behaved and didn't do that. > I think it's due to that even in the master branch implementation, bus scan is ahead of memory init. So we don't use any rte_malloc in bus scan. Thanks, Jianfeng