> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:33 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Cc: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; > Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; > dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port > ownership > > 25/01/2018 12:15, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > 25/01/2018 10:36, Matan Azrad: > > > > Gaetan, Konstantin, Thomas > > > > > > > > Any response to my suggestion below? > > > > > > > > From: Matan Azrad > > > > > Suggestion: > > > > > > > > > > 2 system owners. > > > > > APP_OWNER - 1. > > > > > NO_OWNER - 0. > > > > > > > > > > And allowing for more owners as now. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Every port creation will set the owner for NO_OWNER (as now). > > > > > 2. There is option for all dpdk entities to take owner of NO_OWNER > > > > > ports all > > > > > the time(as now). > > > > > 3. In some point in the end of EAL init: set all the NO_OWNER to > > > > > APP_OWNER(for V6). > > > > What will happen if we have 2 (or more process) sharing the same device? > > How we will distinguish what APP_OWNER we are talking about? > > Shouldn't default_owner be unique per process? > > Yes, good point! > Each application process should be considered a different owner > by default. > > > > > > 4. Change the old iterator to iterate over APP_OWNER ports(for V6). > > > > If I get it right it means no changes in tetpmd, correct? > > It is my understanding yes.
Sounds reasonable to me then. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Reminder for everybody: there is no issue if no hotplug. > > > There is a race condition with hotplug. > > > Hotplug is not managed by EAL yet, but there is a temporary hotplug > > > management in failsafe. > > > So until now, the issue is seen only with hotplug in failsafe. > > > > > > Your suggestion makes no change for applications, > > > and fix the ownership issue for failsafe. > > > And later, if an application wants to support generic hotplug properly > > > (when it will be generally available in DPDK), > > > the application should use the ownership API. > > > Right? > > > > > > I think it is a good compromise. > > > > I still think it would be good if future hotplug support will be transparent > > to existing apps (no/minimal changes). > > But I suppose we can discuss it later, when will have hotplug patches. > > It cannot be really transparent. > If an application is based on port detection at init, it has to be changed > to decide how to handle new ports. > That's why I introduced the new events for ethdev notification callback. Ok, but I think, most processes would just assign default_owner for newly plugged device. For that case I don't see why it can't be transparent. Anyway, that's probably a topic for new mail thread. Konstantin
