> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Ola Liljedahl [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc: ext Mike Holmes; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 0/3] Remove odp_schedule_one for 1.0 > compliance > > On 15 December 2014 at 13:45, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Otherwise OK, but shouldn't remove the timer example. > I also think it is good to have a timer example. Just shouldn't be > called odp_timer_test. Since we don't have any other timer example, > this one will have to do for now. > > > > > Why it's a bad example? I think we need a set of simple examples. It > would also demonstrate how to step out from a schedule loop (== pause -> > schedule until ODP_BUFFER_INVALID is returned -> tear down / step out). > > > > The new timer example could be more performance oriented, etc. > What is that that we want to demonstrate? > 1) basic timer usage (single-threaded?) > 2) multithreaded, combining timer and scheduler > 3) more? > > Can you be more specific with "more performance oriented"?
I think all examples should be multi-threaded. There could be two categories of examples: "hello world" and more realistic/performance oriented. The first would demonstrate usage of an API in simplest possible way and with low dependency to other APIs. The second would be more complex, but would run more things in parallel and measure performance as well (easy / light weight check that parallel execution works and performs OK). >From current examples: - odp_example is type 2 for queues/scheduling. There could be another "hello world" queues/scheduling app. - odp_timer_test is type 1 for timers (runs 20 sec and exists). There could be another that runs long / forever and measures cpu load, timeout accuracy, etc -Petri _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
