[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/pdump: exits once primary app exited

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 26-Apr-19 3:32 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
> 
> On 2019/4/26 21:46, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 26-Apr-19 1:08 PM, Suanming.Mou wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2019/4/26 18:56, Varghese, Vipin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will leave this suggestion open for comments from the maintainer.
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestion. I have also tried to add an slave core to 
>>> monitor the primary status this afternoon.  It works.
>>>
>>> I doubt if it can be add an new option as you suggested, but which 
>>> will also require people who complain the exiting to add an extra 
>>> slave core for that.
>>>
>>> Please waiting for the new patch in one or two days.
>>>
>>
>> You can use alarm API to check for this regularly. It's not like the 
>> interrupt thread is doing much anyway. Just set alarm to fire every N 
>> seconds, and that's it.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you very much for the suggestion. Yes, that seems the best 
> solution.  Just tested it roughly as the code below:
> 
> +static void monitor_primary(void *arg __rte_unused)
> +{
> +    if (quit_signal)
> +        return;
> +
> +    if (rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL))
> +        rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
> +    else
> +        quit_signal = 1;
> +
> +    return;
> +}
> +
>   static inline void
>   dump_packets(void)
>   {
>       int i;
>       uint32_t lcore_id = 0;
> 
> +    if (exit_with_primary)
> +        rte_eal_alarm_set(MONITOR_INTERVEL, monitor_primary, NULL);
> +
> 
> 
> I will prepare the patch with option exit_with_primary.
> 

Actually, i'm curious if this really does work. Unless my knowledge is 
out of date, interrupt thread doesn't work in secondary processes, and 
by extension neither should the alarm API...

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly