This is a good segue to a question I have. When polling queues created as ORDERED or ATOMIC, are multiple cores able to poll these queues simultaneously and order/atomicity will be preserved? Or with polled queues is the burden on the application.
If ordering and atomicity is guaranteed by the implementation when only polled queues are supported, then I think it's fair to say that applications can choose polled versus scheduled. If that's not true and implementations that only support polling have no ordering/atomicity guarantees, then that seems to be more like DPDK versus ODP. My apologies if these details are already spelled out somewhere. Thanks, Robbie -----Original Message----- From: Anders Roxell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 8:25 AM To: Taras Kondratiuk Cc: Robbie King (robking); [email protected]; Mike Holmes (Google Drive) ([email protected]) Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv3 0/4] IPsec example application On 2014-09-04 09:23, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: > On 09/03/2014 09:14 PM, Robbie King (robking) wrote: > > Taras, do you have a bug ID for the "IPSEC_POLL_QUEUES" workaround? > > Anders has requested that be included in my IPsec application patch. > > Anders, why do you think it need to be tracked as a bug? It is just a > different way of using API. Not all applications must use scheduler > API. We have the same in all our packet examples. I just had a problem with this sentence: "Some platforms require a temporary hack to get around using odp_schedule" "temporary hack" in my ears that should be a bug, maybe we can rename it and say that this isn't a hack? and I asked if this should be a bug. Cheers, Anders _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
