summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/src/vlib/init.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2024-03-12misc: remove GNU Indent directivesDamjan Marion1-6/+0
Type: refactor Change-Id: I5235bf3e9aff58af6ba2c14e8c6529c4fc9ec86c Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
2021-03-26vlib: split vlib_main_t into global and per-threadDamjan Marion1-27/+47
Type: refactor Change-Id: I8b273bc3bf16aa360f031f1b2692f766e5fc4613 Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
2020-08-06misc: harmonize namesDave Barach1-1/+1
Type: fix Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net> Change-Id: Ibad744788e200ce012ad88ff59c2c34920742454
2019-06-04sort worker-thread init functions in advanceDave Barach1-6/+24
Otherwise, all N worker threads try to sort the list at the same time: a good way to have a bad day. This approach performs *far* better than maintaing order by adding a spin-lock. By direct measurement w/ elog + g2: 11 threads execute the per-thread init function list in 22us, vs. 50ms with a CLIB_PAUSE() enabled spin-lock. Change-Id: I1745f2a213c0561260139a60114dcb981e0c64e5 Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net>
2019-05-16init / exit function orderingDave Barach1-5/+496
The vlib init function subsystem now supports a mix of procedural and formally-specified ordering constraints. We should eliminate procedural knowledge wherever possible. The following schemes are *roughly* equivalent: static clib_error_t *init_runs_first (vlib_main_t *vm) { clib_error_t *error; ... do some stuff... if ((error = vlib_call_init_function (init_runs_next))) return error; ... } VLIB_INIT_FUNCTION (init_runs_first); and static clib_error_t *init_runs_first (vlib_main_t *vm) { ... do some stuff... } VLIB_INIT_FUNCTION (init_runs_first) = { .runs_before = VLIB_INITS("init_runs_next"), }; The first form will [most likely] call "init_runs_next" on the spot. The second form means that "init_runs_first" runs before "init_runs_next," possibly much earlier in the sequence. Please DO NOT construct sets of init functions where A before B actually means A *right before* B. It's not necessary - simply combine A and B - and it leads to hugely annoying debugging exercises when trying to switch from ad-hoc procedural ordering constraints to formal ordering constraints. Change-Id: I5e4353503bf43b4acb11a45fb33c79a5ade8426c Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net>
2016-12-28Reorganize source tree to use single autotools instanceDamjan Marion1-0/+168
Change-Id: I7b51f88292e057c6443b12224486f2d0c9f8ae23 Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>