[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership
Ananyev, Konstantin
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Tue Dec 5 15:57:30 CET 2017
>> Just forgot to mention - I don' think it is good idea to disallow secondary process to set theowner.
>I think we all agree on that.
>My initial suggestion was to use the ownership in secondary processes.
>I think Matan forbid it as a first step because there is no
>multi-process synchronization currently.
>> Let say in secondary process I have few tap/ring/pcap devices.
>> Why it shouldn't be allowed to unite them under bonding device and make that device to own them?
>> That's why I think get/set owner better to be atomic.
>> If the owner is just a pointer - in that case get operation will be atomic by nature,
>> set could be implemented just by CAS.
>It would be perfect.
>Can we be sure that the atomic will work perfectly on shared memory?
>On every architectures?
I believe - yes, how otherwise rte_ring and rte_mbuf would work for MP? :)
Konstantin
More information about the dev
mailing list