From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] eventtimer: introduce event timer
	wheel
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:48:58 +0200
Message-ID: <17506826.eAYivCQaQA@xps>
References: <20170817161104.24293-1-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <31351930.ptpEdNRZ9E@xps> <20170829154128.GB13020@jerin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Van Haaren,
 Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
 "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, "Eads,
 Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>, "nipun.gupta@nxp.com" <nipun.gupta@nxp.com>,
 "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vangati@intel.com>, "Rao,
 Nikhil" <nikhil.rao@intel.com>,
 "pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com" <pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com>,
 "jianbo.liu@linaro.org" <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>,
 "rsanford@akamai.com" <rsanford@akamai.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8C4324A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:49:00 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20170829154128.GB13020@jerin>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

29/08/2017 17:41, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 25/08/2017 12:25, Jerin Jacob:
> > > From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
> > [...]
> > > > In summary, it looks like our solutions align fairly well, and I propose that we take on the software implementation if there are no objections.
> > > 
> > > Sure, no objection.
> > 
> > Good to see such a basic function generalized for NPU and CPU.
> > 
> > Are you going to use rte_timer for CPU implementation?
> > Does it mean that event_timer supersedes rte_timer?
> 
> IMO, we don't need to supersedes the rte_timer. The eventdev or event_timer is
> an optional component. It is application decision to use poll mode vs event
> driver model or combination of two.

Trying to make clear when using poll mode or event model,
regarding CPU/NPU differences:
If using poll mode + rte_timer, we cannot leverage NPU offloads.
If using event model, is it as much efficient for generic CPU?