On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > Even before this series, MP has no protection on lcore placing between > > primary and secondary processes. > > Agree, it is not a new problem, it has been there for a while. > Though making lcore assignment dynamic will make it more noticeable and > harder to avoid. > With static only lcore distribution it is much easier to control things. > > > Personally, I have no use for DPDK MP and marking MP as not supporting > > this new feature is tempting for a first phase. > > If this is a strong requirement, I can look at it in a second phase. > > What do you think? > > In theory it is possible to mark this new API as not supported for MP. > At least for now. Though I think it is sort of temporal solution. > AFAIK, MP is used by customers, so sooner or later someone will hit that > problem.
I understand this argument. But then we don't see those customers giving feedback. > Let say, we do have pdump app/library in our mainline. > As I can see - it will be affected when users will start using this new > dynamic lcore API > inside their apps. Supporting lcore allocation in MP requires exchanges between primary/secondary processes like what we have for memory allocations. It will be quite a beast to get to work fine, while not even knowing if people actually want to use both. For v4, I added a check to exclude MP and the new API. I am still willing to help if people do care about using both features together. -- David Marchand
