On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:43:00 +0200
Gaëtan Rivet <gr...@u256.net> wrote:
> On 04/06/20 18:04 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I have a full patch that replaces the master/slave lcore
> > naming (widely used in DPDK) with a better primary/secondary naming.
> >
> > For now this is just a trial balloon to see what the impact would
> > look like. The change mostly automated so likely that things
> > are broken.
> >
> > It is hard to break a change like this down, and still
> > keep git bisection clean.
> >
> > It keeps rte_master_lcore_id and RTE_FOREACH_SLAVE as deprecated
> > items so that user code can still be built but they will be motivated
> > to change.
> >
> > Here is a sample of what it would look like:
> >
>
> I think PRIMARY is a poor choice to describe the control thread. PRIMARY
> is often used to designate the active element currently doing the work.
> SECONDARY threads are also active threads doing equal dataplane work.
>
> Another issue I see with primary / secondary is the ambiguity with
> multi-process in DPDK. Doc readers could get confused about where a
> primary / secondary thread is executed.
>
> I think we could use instead DPDK-specific terminology. The lcore
> organization is a little specific, with an lcore that does most init work
> and spawns the others, but then runs the application like all others.
>
> I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader
> is still a member of the team and will participate in the work.
>
> Leader / worker?
>
Looking at Django the chose leader/follower.
Other alternatives are:
agency/operative
hive/drone
primary/handler
conductor/doer
captain/conscript
schemer/patsies
primary/replica
