[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 17/17] timer: add support to non-EAL thread

Olivier MATZ olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Wed Feb 11 18:21:52 CET 2015


Hi,

On 02/11/2015 07:25 AM, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>>> +			tim_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(
>>> +				priv_timer[lcore_id].prev_lcore,
>>> +				0, 1);
>>> +			priv_timer[lcore_id].prev_lcore = tim_lcore;
>>> +		} else
>>> +			tim_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(LCORE_ID_ANY, 0, 1);
>>
>> I think the following line:
>> tim_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(LCORE_ID_ANY, 0, 1);
>> Will return the first enabled core.
>>
>> Maybe using rte_get_master_lcore() is clearer?
> [LCM] It doesn't expect must to be a master lcore.
> Any available lcore is fine, so I think make sense to just use the first enabled core.

Yes I agree it does not need to be the master lcore, but until recently
the definition of the master lcore was "the first enabled core".

I was thinking rte_get_master_lcore() is easier to understand
that rte_get_next_lcore(LCORE_ID_ANY, 0, 1). If you still prefer
to keep the second one, can you add a comment saying something like
"non-EAL thread do not run rte_timer_manage(), so schedule the timer
on the first enabled lcore"?

Thanks,
Olivier



More information about the dev mailing list