From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] eal: bring forward init of interrupt
	handling
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:36:59 +0200
Message-ID: <5431396.k1M6VaMcRs@xps>
References: <cover.1530009564.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
 <5f6bc60bf193daf4eb07f4484c52878bb1b751de.1530009564.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com,
 qi.z.zhang@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com,
 david.marchand@6wind.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com
To: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB121B06D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:37:03 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <5f6bc60bf193daf4eb07f4484c52878bb1b751de.1530009564.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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?