-----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:48:58 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> > Cc: "Carrillo, Erik G" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > "Richardson, Bruce" <[email protected]>, "Van Haaren, Harry" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "Eads, Gage" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Vangati, Narender" > <[email protected]>, "Rao, Nikhil" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/1] eventtimer: introduce event timer > wheel > > 29/08/2017 17:41, Jerin Jacob: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > > 25/08/2017 12:25, Jerin Jacob: > > > > From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <[email protected]> > > > [...] > > > > > In summary, it looks like our solutions align fairly well, and I > > > > > propose that we take on the software implementation if there are no > > > > > objections. > > > > > > > > Sure, no objection. > > > > > > Good to see such a basic function generalized for NPU and CPU. > > > > > > Are you going to use rte_timer for CPU implementation? > > > Does it mean that event_timer supersedes rte_timer? > > > > IMO, we don't need to supersedes the rte_timer. The eventdev or event_timer > > is > > an optional component. It is application decision to use poll mode vs event > > driver model or combination of two. > > Trying to make clear when using poll mode or event model, > regarding CPU/NPU differences: > If using poll mode + rte_timer, we cannot leverage NPU offloads.
Yes. > If using event model, is it as much efficient for generic CPU? It is case by case. I think, ATOMIC queues and PARALLEL queues can be effectively implemented for the generic CPU. ORDERED queue(the reordering business) may not very effective. So it is boiled down to application requirements.
