On 28-Oct-21 4:14 PM, Gregory Etelson wrote:
Hello Anatoly,
..snip..
b/examples/multi_process/client_server_mp/m
p_server/main.c
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
process_packets(uint32_t port_num
__rte_unused,
struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint16_t
rx_count)
{
uint16_t i;
- uint8_t client = 0;
+ static uint8_t client = 0;
for (i = 0; i < rx_count; i++) {
enqueue_rx_packet(client, pkts[i]);
Wouldn't that make it global? I don't recall off
the top of my head if
the multiprocess app is intended to have
multiple Rx threads, but if you
did have two forwarding threads, they would
effectively both use the
same `client` value, stepping on top of each
other. This should probably
be per-thread?
MP client-server example was not designed as a multi-threaded app.
Server and clients run in a different process and the model allows one server
process.
Server allocates a dedicated ring to each client and distributes Rx packets
between rings in round-robin sequence.
Each ring configured for single producer and single consumer.
Consider an example when server's rte_eth_rx_burst() returns a single packet
on each call.
Without the patch, the server will ignore all clients with id > 0 and
assign all Rx packets to rx_ring 0.
Changing process_packets() `client` variable to static allows unform
round-robin
packets distribution between rings.
Regards,
Gregory
Right, i just checked the code, and the app indeed allows only one
forwarding thread on the server.
Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
