[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] eal: add asynchronous request API to DPDK IPC
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Mon Mar 26 16:28:23 CEST 2018
On 26-Mar-18 3:15 PM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/2018 8:46 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
>> This API is similar to the blocking API that is already present,
>> but reply will be received in a separate callback by the caller
>> (callback specified at the time of request, rather than registering
>> for it in advance).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>
> Generally, it looks great to me except some trivial nits, so
>
> Acked-by: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan at intel.com>
Thanks!
>> +static void
>> +trigger_async_action(struct pending_request *sr)
>> +{
>> + struct async_request_param *param;
>> + struct rte_mp_reply *reply;
>> +
>> + param = sr->async.param;
>> + reply = ¶m->user_reply;
>> +
>> + param->clb(sr->request, reply);
>> +
>> + /* clean up */
>> + free(sr->async.param->user_reply.msgs);
>
> How about simple "free(reply->msgs);"?
>
I would prefer leaving it as is, as it makes it clear that i'm freeing
everything to do with sync request.
>> +
>> + sync_req->type = REQUEST_TYPE_ASYNC;
>> + strcpy(sync_req->dst, dst);
>> + sync_req->request = req;
>> + sync_req->reply = reply_msg;
>> + sync_req->async.param = param;
>> +
>> + /* queue already locked by caller */
>> +
>> + exist = find_sync_request(dst, req->name);
>> + if (!exist)
>> + TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&pending_requests.requests, sync_req, next);
>> + if (exist) {
>
> else?
>
Will fix in v6
>> @@ -744,9 +1027,155 @@ rte_mp_request(struct rte_mp_msg *req, struct
>> rte_mp_reply *reply,
>> }
>> int __rte_experimental
>> -rte_mp_reply(struct rte_mp_msg *msg, const char *peer)
>> +rte_mp_request_async(struct rte_mp_msg *req, const struct timespec *ts,
>> + rte_mp_async_reply_t clb)
>> {
>> + struct rte_mp_msg *copy;
>> + struct pending_request *dummy;
>> + struct async_request_param *param = NULL;
>
> No need to assign it to NULL.
>
Will fix in v6.
>> + /* we have to lock the request queue here, as we will be adding a
>> bunch
>> + * of requests to the queue at once, and some of the replies may
>> arrive
>> + * before we add all of the requests to the queue.
>> + */
>> + pthread_mutex_lock(&pending_requests.lock);
>> +
>> + /* we have to ensure that callback gets triggered even if we
>> don't send
>> + * anything, therefore earlier we have allocated a dummy request.
>> put it
>> + * on the queue and fill it. we will remove it once we know we sent
>> + * something.
>> + */
>
> Or we can add this dummy at last if it's necessary, instead of adding
> firstly and remove if not necessary? No strong option here.
>
Yep, sure, will fix in v6.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list