> -Original Message-
> From: Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:41 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
>
>
To: Liang, Cunming; Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liang
>
> BTW, one more thing: while we are on it - it is probably a good time to do
> something with our interrupt thread?
> It is a bit strange that we can't use rte_pktmbuf_free() or
> rte_spinlock_recursive_lock() from our own interrupt/alarm handlers
>
> Konstantin
[Liang, Cunming] I'll think abo
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 1:06 AM
> To: Liang, Cunming; Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
>
> Hi
] support multi-phtread per lcore
Hi Steve,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:52 AM
> To: Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-d
Hi Steve,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:52 AM
> To: Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 2:29 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 6:02 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
> > -Original Messag
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:46:03 +
> > Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:51:27AM +, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> &g
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
> Hemminger
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:29 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:46:03 +
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:51:27AM +, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> > ...
> > > I'm conflicted on this one. However, I think far more applications would
> > > be
> > > broken
> > > to start having to use thread_id in place of an lcore_id
> -Original Message-
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: Liang, Cunming
> Cc: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:51:27AM +, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> ...
> > I'm conflicted on this one. However, I think far more applications would be
> > broken
> > to start having to use thread_id in place of an lcore_id than would be
> > broken
> > by having the lcore_id no longer actually corre
...
> I'm conflicted on this one. However, I think far more applications would be
> broken
> to start having to use thread_id in place of an lcore_id than would be broken
> by having the lcore_id no longer actually correspond to a core.
> I'm actually struggling to come up with a large number of sc
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 01:28:47AM +, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:20 PM
> > To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH
> -Original Message-
> From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:20 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
> I have another question regarding your patch.
>
&
Hi,
On 12/18/2014 03:32 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:20:07PM +, Walukiewicz, Miroslaw wrote:
>> I have another question regarding your patch.
>>
>> Could we extend values returned by rte_lcore_id() to set them per thread
>> (really the DPDK lcore is a pthread but
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:11:12PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/18/2014 03:32 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:20:07PM +, Walukiewicz, Miroslaw wrote:
> >> I have another question regarding your patch.
> >>
> >> Could we extend values returned by rte_lc
---Original Message-
> > From: Liang, Cunming
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:53 PM
> > To: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
> >
> > Hi Mirek,
> >
> >
lti-phtread per lcore
>
> Hi Mirek,
>
> That sounds great.
> Looking forward to it.
>
> -Cunming
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:11 PM
> > To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> &
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:20:07 +
"Walukiewicz, Miroslaw" wrote:
> Could we extend values returned by rte_lcore_id() to set them per thread
> (really the DPDK lcore is a pthread but started on specific core) instead of
> creating linear thread id.
The linear thread id is very useful for havi
Hi Mirek,
That sounds great.
Looking forward to it.
-Cunming
> -Original Message-
> From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:11 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
As 'rte_timer' is not preemptable, when using rte_timer_manager/reset in
> multi-pthread, make sure they're not on the same core.
>
> -Cunming
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014
ad, make sure they're not on the same core.
-Cunming
> -Original Message-
> From: Walukiewicz, Miroslaw
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:57 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
> Thank
Scope & Usage Scenario
DPDK usually pin pthread per core to avoid task switch overhead. It gains
performance a lot, but it's not efficient in all cases. In some cases, it may
too expensive to use the whole core for a lightweight workload. It's a
reasonable demand to
at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
>
>
> Scope & Usage Scenario
>
>
> DPDK usually pin pthread per core to avoid task switch overhead. It gains
> performance a lot, but it's not efficient in all ca
: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/7] support multi-phtread per lcore
Scope & Usage Scenario
DPDK usually pin pthread per core to avoid task switch overhead. It gains
performance a lot, but it's not efficient in all cases. In some cases, it may
too expensive to use the w
27 matches
Mail list logo
