[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-27 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Richardson, Bruce > > Agreed, however hiding it totally removes the flexibility of waiting for a > > primary > > that is starting with --file-prefix (aka: in a non-default location). > > Imposing > > a limit on only monitoring primary procs in the default location seems > > wrong. > >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-26 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Qiu, Michael > > Whatever work the secondary was performing (in its own address space) > > won't be directly changed by the primary being killed, because the > > shared config and hugepages stay (EAL "cleans up" when the primary > > is re-launched, not on quit). > > OK, when primary quit

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-26 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:44:59AM +, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > The details of what the config file is should largely be hidden from the > > user > > IMHO. > > Agreed, however hiding it totally removes the flexibility of waiting for a > primary > that is

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-26 Thread Qiu, Michael
On 1/26/2016 5:04 PM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >> From: Qiu, Michael >> On 1/25/2016 7:51 PM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >>> Not really, the secondary process will need some CPU, >>> however it can sleep so it doesn't have to use 100% of it. >>> It shouldn't be run on a core that is used by the

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-26 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Qiu, Michael > On 1/25/2016 7:51 PM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > Not really, the secondary process will need some CPU, > > however it can sleep so it doesn't have to use 100% of it. > > It shouldn't be run on a core that is used by the primary > > for packet-forwarding though - that will

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-26 Thread Qiu, Michael
On 1/25/2016 7:51 PM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >> From: Qiu, Michael >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc >> alive >> >> So secondary will waste a whole lcore to do such polling? > Not really, the secondary process wil

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-25 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Qiu, Michael > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc > alive > > So secondary will waste a whole lcore to do such polling? Not really, the secondary process will need some CPU, however it can sleep so it doesn't have to use 100% of i

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-25 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Richardson, Bruce > The details of what the config file is should largely be hidden from the user > IMHO. Agreed, however hiding it totally removes the flexibility of waiting for a primary that is starting with --file-prefix (aka: in a non-default location). Imposing a limit on only

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-25 Thread Qiu, Michael
On 1/20/2016 9:26 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: > This patch adds a new function to the EAL API: > int rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(const char *path); > > The function indicates if a primary process is alive right now. > This functionality is implemented by testing for a write- > lock on the config

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-25 Thread Qiu, Michael
; Cc: dev at dpdk.org >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc >>> alive >>> >>> As we could start up many primaries, how does your secondary process >>> work with them? >> When a primary process initializes,

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-22 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:02:41AM +, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: Qiu, Michael > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:14 AM > > To: Van Haaren, Harry ; david.marchand at > > 6wind.com > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: a

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-21 Thread Van Haaren, Harry
> From: Qiu, Michael > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:14 AM > To: Van Haaren, Harry ; david.marchand at > 6wind.com > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc > alive > > As we could start up many primari

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-21 Thread Qiu, Michael
On 1/20/2016 9:26 PM, Harry van Haaren wrote: > This patch adds a new function to the EAL API: > int rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(const char *path); > > The function indicates if a primary process is alive right now. > This functionality is implemented by testing for a write- > lock on the config

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-20 Thread Matthew Hall
On 1/20/16 10:14 PM, Qiu, Michael wrote: > As we could start up many primaries, how does your secondary process > work with them? I just worked on this tonight myself. When doing > 1 primary (for example pktgen and app), I had to specify: --no-shconf --file-prefix pktgen --file-prefix app Or

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add function to check if primary proc alive

2016-01-20 Thread Harry van Haaren
This patch adds a new function to the EAL API: int rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(const char *path); The function indicates if a primary process is alive right now. This functionality is implemented by testing for a write- lock on the config file, and the function tests for a lock. The use case for