29/08/2017 17:41, Jerin Jacob: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 25/08/2017 12:25, Jerin Jacob: > > > From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> > > [...] > > > > In summary, it looks like our solutions align fairly well, and I > > > > propose that we take on the software implementation if there are no > > > > objections. > > > > > > Sure, no objection. > > > > Good to see such a basic function generalized for NPU and CPU. > > > > Are you going to use rte_timer for CPU implementation? > > Does it mean that event_timer supersedes rte_timer? > > IMO, we don't need to supersedes the rte_timer. The eventdev or event_timer is > an optional component. It is application decision to use poll mode vs event > driver model or combination of two.
Trying to make clear when using poll mode or event model, regarding CPU/NPU differences: If using poll mode + rte_timer, we cannot leverage NPU offloads. If using event model, is it as much efficient for generic CPU?
