Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] passt: Move main event loop processing into passt_worker()

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2248 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:00:58AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 20/10/2025 03:43, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:31:29PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > Extract the epoll event processing logic from main() into a separate
> > > passt_worker() function. This refactoring prepares the code for future
> > > threading support where passt_worker() will be called as a worker thread
> > > callback.
> > > 
> > > The new function handles:
> > > - Processing epoll events and dispatching to protocol handlers
> > > - Event statistics tracking and printing
> > > - Post-handler periodic tasks (timers, deferred work)
> > > - Migration handling
> > > 
> > > No functional changes, purely a code restructuring.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Looks good as far as it goes, and I've though often in the past that
> > it would make more sense for the "engine" to go in its own function.
> > 
> > Wondering if it would make more sense to include the epoll_wait()
> > itself and the loop in this function, rather than leaving that
> > outside.
> > 
> 
> When I introduce the multithreading and the multiqueue, as the thread is
> driven by the epollfd, the events are managed by the multiqueue part and the
> epollfd by the multithread part.
> 
> The "threading" worker is:
> 
> static void *threading_worker(void *opaque)
> {
>         struct threading_context *tc = opaque;
> 
>         while (true) {
>                 struct epoll_event events[NUM_EPOLL_EVENTS];
>                 int nfds;
> 
>                 nfds = epoll_wait(tc->epollfd, events, NUM_EPOLL_EVENTS,
>                                   TIMER_INTERVAL);
>                 if (nfds == -1 && errno != EINTR)
>                         die_perror("epoll_wait() failed");
> 
>                 tc->worker(tc->opaque, nfds, events);

IIUC the point here is that eventually the epoll_wait() will be
common, but the worker might be different for different threads.  Is
that correct?

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]