From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC] Service Cores concept Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 00:11:10 +0200 Message-ID: <5129240.aMJQgb24zL@xps> References: <1493810961-139469-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, nipun.gupta@nxp.com, narender.vangati@intel.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, gage.eads@intel.com To: Harry van Haaren Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E95720F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 00:11:12 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1493810961-139469-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 03/05/2017 13:29, Harry van Haaren: > The concept is to allow a software function register itself with EAL as > a "service", which requires CPU time to perform its duties. Multiple > services can be registered in an application, if more than one service > exists. The application can retrieve a list of services, and decide how > many "service cores" to use. The number of service cores is removed > from the application usage, and they are mapped to services based on > an application supplied coremask. > > The application now continues as normal, without having to manually > schedule and implement arbitration of CPU time for the SW services. I think it should not be the DPDK responsibility to schedule threads. The mainloops and scheduling are application design choices. If I understand well the idea of your proposal, it is a helper for the application to configure the thread scheduling of known services. So I think we could add interrupt processing and other thread creations in this concept. Could we also embed the rte_eal_mp_remote_launch() calls in this concept?