[dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept

Bruce Richardson bruce.richardson at intel.com
Tue Jun 6 16:53:47 CEST 2017

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:25:57AM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 11:23 AM
> > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFCv2] service core concept
> <snip>
> > > In particular this version of the API enables applications that are not aware of services to
> > > benefit from the services concept, as EAL args can be used to setup services and service
> > cores.
> > > With this design, switching to/from SW/HW PMD is transparent to the application. An example
> > > use-case is the Eventdev HW PMD to Eventdev SW PMD that requires a service core.
> > >
> > > I have noted the implementation comments that were raised on the v1. For v2, I think our
> > time
> > > is better spent looking at the API design, and I will handle implementation feedback in the
> > > follow-up patchset to v2 RFC.
> > >
> > > Below a summary of what we are trying to achieve, and the current API design.
> > > Have a good weekend! Cheers, -Harry
> > 
> >
> > Looks good to me in general.
> > The only comment I have - do we really need to put it into rte_eal_init()
> > and a new EAL command-line parameter for it?
> > Might be better to leave it to the particular app to decide.
> There are a number of options here, each with its own merit:
> A) Services/cores config in EAL
> Benefit is that service functionality can be transparent to the application. Negative is that the complexity is in EAL.
> B) Application configures services/cores
> Benefit is no added EAL complexity. Negative is that application code has to configure cores (duplicated per application).
> To answer this question, I think we need to estimate how many applications would benefit from EAL integration and balance that against the "complexity cost" of doing so. I do like the simplicity of option (B), however if there is significant value in total transparency to the application I think (A) is the better choice.
> Input on A) or B) welcomed! -Harry

I'm definitely in favour of having it in EAL. The whole reason for doing
this work is to make it easy for applications to dedicate cores to
background tasks - including applications written before this
functionality was added. By merging this into EAL, we can have
transparency in the app, as we can have the service cores completely in
the background, and the app can call rte_eal_mp_remote_launch() exactly
as before, without unexpected failures. If we move this externally, the
app needs to be reworked to take account of that fact, and call new,
service-core aware, launch functions instead.


More information about the dev mailing list