Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] eal: bring forward init of interrupt handling

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

26/06/2018 12:53, Anatoly Burakov:
> From: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
> 
> Next commit will make asynchronous IPC requests rely on alarm API,
> which in turn relies on interrupts to work. Therefore, move the EAL
> interrupt initialization before IPC initialization to avoid breaking
> IPC in the next commit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> ---
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
> @@ -839,6 +839,11 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>  
>  	rte_config_init();
>  
> +	if (rte_eal_intr_init() < 0) {
> +		rte_eal_init_alert("Cannot init interrupt-handling thread\n");
> +		return -1;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* 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.
>  	 */
> @@ -968,11 +973,6 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>  		rte_config.master_lcore, (int)thread_id, cpuset,
>  		ret == 0 ? "" : "...");
>  
> -	if (rte_eal_intr_init() < 0) {
> -		rte_eal_init_alert("Cannot init interrupt-handling thread\n");
> -		return -1;
> -	}
> -
>  	RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_SLAVE(i) {

I am almost sure it will bring regressions.

Please think again about the consequences of initializing interrupt thread
before affinity setting, memory init, device init.

Opinions / ideas from anyone?