Yes, it does this but later on calls odp_pktio_inq_setdef:
inq_def = QUEUE_CREATE(inq_name, ODP_QUEUE_TYPE_PKTIN, &qparam);
if (inq_def == ODP_QUEUE_INVALID) {
ODP_ERR("Error: pktio queue creation failed for %s\n",
intf);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
ret = odp_pktio_inq_setdef(pktio, inq_def); --------> this
schedules the queue
if (ret != 0) {
ODP_ERR("Error: default input-Q setup for %s\n", intf);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
Alex
On 4 September 2014 15:57, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 03:35 PM, Alexandru Badicioiu wrote:
>
>> I took a look also in the implementation using POLL queues and there is
>> something which I don't understand - odp_pktio_inq_setdef is used to set
>> input queues for pktios but this call also schedule the queues, at least
>> in the linux generic implementation. But these queues are explicitly
>> polled in the application and we discussed some time ago it should be
>> impossible to explicitly dequeue from a scheduled queue (at least this
>> is happening with HW queues). I think if we support POLL queues in
>> odp_ipsec it should be consistent with all HW platforms semantics. This
>> is why it looks to me like a hack and not a true implementation.
>>
>
> Actually ipsec app does it in a right way. It changes queue type to POLL
> if polling is used instead of scheduling.
>
> if (ODP_QUEUE_TYPE_SCHED == type) {
> printf("%s: change %s to POLL\n", __func__, name);
> my_type = ODP_QUEUE_TYPE_POLL;
> }
>
>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2014 15:24, Anders Roxell <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> 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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
