On 26-Jul-19 4:56 PM, Lipiec, Herakliusz wrote:
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Burakov, Anatoly
On 26-Jul-19 4:01 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:53:58 +0100
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
NP to disallow it.
In fact, I think it would be easier for everyone just to drop
current DPDK MP model, and keep just standalone DPDK instances.
That's the dream, but i don't think it'll ever come to fruition, at
least not without a huge push from the community.
There are several net appliances that require primary/secondary model.
I think initially during DPDK development it was sold as a feature to
the Network vendors.
It might be possible to clamp down on what API's are supported by
secondary process. For example, disallowing any control operations start/stop
etc.
We're getting slightly off topic here.
The original question was about whether we want to support a use case where a
secondary can initialize after primary process has died, and if we don't,
whether
we want to 1) outright deny initialization, or 2) allow it, but document as
unsupported and discourage it.
Allowing something that is unsupported sounds like asking for trouble.
We wouldn't be "allowing" it as much as we'd just be disclaiming any
responsibility for when things go wrong, *if* someone tries that. I
suppose the concern is that someone would try that /accidentally/, and
possibly screw up other secondary processes that may still be running.
The only use case i can think of that would require it is proc-info app.
Dumping stuff from a dead process can be useful for debugging, so perhaps we
can agree to put a warning at EAL startup, saying that this is not supported,
but
still allow processes to initialize.
If this is supposed to be useful for debugging then maybe allow only when some
kind of flag is passed to eal?
This would also prevent from initializing the process incidentally.
We have too many EAL flags as it is! I suppose this could be done -
proc-info already hardcodes the "--proc-type" flag so that it only ever
runs as a secondary, we could add another one there. So, technically,
this is doable.
I'm just not sure of the prospect of adding a yet another EAL flag to
serve a purpose of enabling one specific application to run. That said,
an "--i-know-what-i-am-doing" flag certainly sounds like a fun idea!
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
