[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Thu Jan 25 12:15:21 CET 2018


Hi everyone,

> 
> 25/01/2018 10:36, Matan Azrad:
> > Gaetan, Konstantin, Thomas
> >
> > Any response to my suggestion below?
> >
> > From: Matan Azrad
> > > Suggestion:
> > >
> > > 2 system owners.
> > > APP_OWNER - 1.
> > > NO_OWNER - 0.
> > >
> > > And allowing for more owners as now.
> > >
> > > 1. Every port creation will set the owner for NO_OWNER (as now).
> > > 2. There is option for all dpdk entities to take owner of  NO_OWNER ports all
> > > the time(as now).
> > > 3. In some point in the end of EAL init: set all the NO_OWNER to
> > > APP_OWNER(for V6).

What will happen if we have 2 (or more process) sharing the same device?
How we will distinguish what APP_OWNER we are talking about?
Shouldn't default_owner be unique per process?

> > > 4. Change the old iterator to iterate over APP_OWNER ports(for V6).

If I get it right it means no changes in tetpmd, correct?

> > >
> > > What do you think?
> 
> Reminder for everybody: there is no issue if no hotplug.
> There is a race condition with hotplug.
> Hotplug is not managed by EAL yet, but there is a temporary hotplug
> management in failsafe.
> So until now, the issue is seen only with hotplug in failsafe.
> 
> Your suggestion makes no change for applications,
> and fix the ownership issue for failsafe.
> And later, if an application wants to support generic hotplug properly
> (when it will be generally available in DPDK),
> the application should use the ownership API.
> Right?
> 
> I think it is a good compromise.

I still think it would be good if future hotplug support will be transparent
to existing apps (no/minimal changes).
But I suppose we can discuss it later, when will have hotplug patches.
Konstantin



More information about the dev mailing list