[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/1] eventtimer: introduce event timer wheel

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:02:43 +0200
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>, "Carrillo, Erik G"
>  <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson at intel.com>, "Van
>  Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>, "hemant.agrawal at nxp.com"
>  <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>, "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads at intel.com>,
>  "nipun.gupta at nxp.com" <nipun.gupta at nxp.com>, "Vangati, Narender"
>  <narender.vangati at intel.com>, "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil.rao at intel.com>,
>  "pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com" <pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com>,
>  "jianbo.liu at linaro.org" <jianbo.liu at linaro.org>, "rsanford at akamai.com"
>  <rsanford at akamai.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/1] eventtimer: introduce event timer
>  wheel
> 
> 25/08/2017 12:25, Jerin Jacob:
> > From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo at 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.