Hi Thomas ,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:34 AM
> To: Burakov, Anatoly
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng; Ananyev, Konstantin; Van Haaren, Harry
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] eal: add asynchronous request API to
> DPDK IPC
>
> 27/03/2018 15:59, Anatoly Burakov:
> > Under the hood, we create a separate thread to deal with replies to
> > asynchronous requests, that will just wait to be notified by the
> > main thread, or woken up on a timer.
>
> I really don't like that a library is creating a thread.
> We don't even know where the thread is created (which core).
> Can it be a rte_service? or in the interrupt thread?
Agree that we'd better not adding so many threads in a library.
I was considering to merge all the threads into the interrupt thread, however,
we don't have an interrupt thread in freebsd. Further, we don't implement alarm
API in freebsd. That's why I tend to current implementation, and optimize it
later.
For rte_service, it may be not a good idea to reply on it as it needs explicit
API calls to setup.
>
>
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
> > rte_mp_action_unregister;
> > rte_mp_sendmsg;
> > rte_mp_request;
> > + rte_mp_request_async;
>
> So there is rte_mp_request and rte_mp_request_async?
> You should rename rte_mp_request, I guess.
+1.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
>
> > rte_mp_reply;
> > rte_service_attr_get;
> > rte_service_attr_reset_all;
>
>
>
>
