On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:45 AM Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Pavan, > > Snipped > > > >> > > > > >> > > When probing event device in secondary process skip > > >> > > reinitializing the device data structure as it is already done in > > >> > > primary > > process. > > >> > > > > >> > > When removing event device in secondary process skip closing the > > >> > > event device as it should be done by primary process. > > >If primary has crashed or closed before secondary abnormally. Should > > >not close of secondary trigger removal of Eventdev services? > > > > Closing event device on exit of one secondary doesn’t make sense as there > > might be systems where there might be one primary and multiple secondaries > > and secondaries are spawned/destroyed on demand. > > > > Behavior of secondaries on primary process crash is undefined. > Absolutely true, there are work scenarios where primary configures ports and > Eventdev queues-ports pair. It would be multiple secondaries which process > packets via event dev. In such cases, when primary segfaults or crashes it > will lead to undefined states. > > In such scenarios, would not it be preferer able for all secondaries to > subscribe to service function like health check. If the primary is not alive > anymore, then gracefully handle inflight events and events to dequeue. If > this is right understanding, should not there be option in secondary to > gracefully shut down it's worker queue and ports (rather than event device > instance)?
The health check function may not be limited to eventdev, it must apply for all the subsystems in multiprocess mode if primary dies. Such features can be designed/agreed based on every subsystem in mind. For rc2, Let's have this bug fix. New features can be implemented after an agreement with all stakeholders wrt multi-process semantics which applicable for all subsystems. > > snipped
