On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:18:04PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: > Bhanuprakash Bodireddy <bhanuprakash.bodire...@intel.com> writes: > > > This patch is aimed at achieving Fastpath Service Assurance in > > OVS-DPDK deployments. This commit adds support for monitoring the packet > > processing cores(pmd thread cores) by dispatching heartbeats at regular > > intervals. Incase of heartbeat miss the failure shall be detected & > > reported to higher level fault management systems/frameworks. > > > > The implementation uses POSIX shared memory object for storing the > > events that will be read by monitoring framework. keep-alive feature > > can be enabled through below OVSDB settings. > > I've been thinking about this design, and I'm concerned - shared memory > is inflexible, and allows multiple actors to mess with the information. > Is there a reason to use shared memory? I am not sure of what > advantage this form of reporting has vs. simply using a message > passing interface. With messages there is clear abstraction, and the > projects / processes are truly separated. Shared memory is leads to a > situation of inextricably coupling two (or more) processes.
Shared memory is great within a process, but it has drawbacks as an inter-process interface. Bhanu, is there a reason that we need the same interface intra- and inter-process? For example, OVS could have a dedicated thread that monitors the shared memory interface and, on failure, reports the problem over a Unix domain socket. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
