From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196BA0524 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:50:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01FA4067A; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:50:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE4140395 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:50:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id m20-20020a7bcb940000b029010cab7e5a9fso8548573wmi.3 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:50:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iwJasZ0oPJJSaNBvceGN3cBq5wUDBk4rPFc3O2+cOnw=; b=q6ZS3lJzg7SmHsmwB2UHeTpf48opqmLTbJw1XRiXkrOPON3DbWZsRrgHxBzGSNOlcn qheJTOeUTepJ/qqU1wMJiJWBk945xl0UuwP2x40VkTSer02AEzkIwTjRVzhsrV9VP+SX jOUnypVTjdnh0M+/Nm43NNIFsh3Irdut8Ij9CrvUMYnV0lnGONMKlaT062RXk2+Kz2VP Wy8y4bZp7rHW/XpjY3WgT10nftvWrAfar0rNUmimDnu6VHNASxdt4VOsmy3jz6zVkQ7b WIHJwdhGpqo+0YsrzdHrol6lDcqigbnziaNbz0pcgHrl3VhTJIRiLmsCkgWXt5e4j/yx fHNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iwJasZ0oPJJSaNBvceGN3cBq5wUDBk4rPFc3O2+cOnw=; b=lrV2xKqilC/PfsrqyC5l4r0eUcV7bP+4r4CZwExvoCf7oUvWfZxiepK6jY/B/5MAuE VweOPphJh2K3NMMgzZhtIKmdMq/tTYG1Z+ci9Gqu1qETWDL7iT/I6GtsGKltnE6CGnZW M1uWnuUsGpLyQHSsH4JNpBJGSIIUEm6GwqFkZJ/eA/wl7fDI4M5Ik/P6WPgN/EU23/ij LXSL/VvMGVAfMpDaq5pHN+b6zxZ2JqarJ7lqxgdna9oQnB/SC24EW4aTyfZMM6xCZKo+ 5N6d8W4SDTMI8MiBIMsBSCxL6r5zNgWpTCKO541gdkkRu4OlFIS4suT9gNu3GV79iOQ7 6kWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HHCl+xR2xp2qac41l57ZwGbBwhHDraBEnvSYjg3AvAyMlrh03 113K9wyp7MFXAnsan+HBYNO7fmZDSKx4AVYFsJn77fqYr1HLRA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqm5wtfJCDKwn4eNxKNMFQKR1KSjqWPhOgh3NVtkMvHc+GHDQXeCCZPSJSFS74kkE2yBi3CK+cfRafDBDc2q8= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2857:: with SMTP id o84mr7203938wmo.181.1616233802878; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:50:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Mihai Dogaru Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:49:52 +0200 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: [dpdk-users] Efficient communication between dpdk process and NON dpdk process X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" Hello everyone! I am a 4th year computer science student and I'm working on a project which involves a dpdk process communicating with another user space non dpdk process. Non dpdk means it does not use any of the dpdk libraries. My issue is as it follows: I do not know what is the most efficient / fastest way to send data from the dpdk proc to the non dpdk proc (or the other way around). In the sample apps, the assumption is made that both apps are using the dpdk libraries. Which in my case is not true. I have found on this mailing list a similar question from a couple of years ago: link Sadly, it is from a long time ago and I could not find the "load_balancer" app that the author is talking about. I have also posted a question on stackoverflow. Are there any "by the book" ways of doing this communication? I am afraid my synchronization method and whole copy paste on the shared memory will slow things terribly. I apologize if I wrongfully used this mailing list and thank you for reading!