From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] eal: add asynchronous request API to DPDK IPC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:29:35 +0200 Message-ID: <2563064.olffpIeeN1@xps> References: <3396888.LEadjR7LpM@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Van Haaren, Harry" To: "Tan, Jianfeng" Return-path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE1F4C76 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:29:54 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 28/03/2018 04:08, Tan, Jianfeng: > Hi Thomas , > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 27/03/2018 15:59, Anatoly Burakov: > > > Under the hood, we create a separate thread to deal with replies to > > > asynchronous requests, that will just wait to be notified by the > > > main thread, or woken up on a timer. > > > > I really don't like that a library is creating a thread. > > We don't even know where the thread is created (which core). > > Can it be a rte_service? or in the interrupt thread? > > Agree that we'd better not adding so many threads in a library. > > I was considering to merge all the threads into the interrupt thread, however, we don't have an interrupt thread in freebsd. Further, we don't implement alarm API in freebsd. That's why I tend to current implementation, and optimize it later. I would prefer we improve the current code now instead of polluting more with more uncontrolled threads. > For rte_service, it may be not a good idea to reply on it as it needs explicit API calls to setup. I don't see the issue of the explicit API. The IPC is a new service.