Re: seastar and 'tame reactor'

[Casey Bodley <cbodley@redhat.com>]

On 02/13/2018 08:35 AM, kefu chai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:55 PM, Matt Benjamin <mbenjami@redhat.com> wrote:
>> How does tame reactor induce more OSD sessions (@greg);  @kefu, in't
>> the hybrid model another way of saying, tame reactor?  The intuition
> i just realized that it is =)
>
>> I've had to this point is that the interfacing here is essentially
>> similar to making seastar interact with anything else, including
>> frameworks (disks, memory devices) that it absolutely wants to and
>> must.
>>
>

Sorry, I'm probably confusing things here by reusing the 'tame reactor' 
term that Adam coined. The original idea was to allow external threads 
to construct a seastar reactor, and call some new function that does a 
single polling/event loop before returning control to that thread. The 
word 'tame' meant that it wouldn't steal control from your thread 
forever like reactor::run() does.

This 'external queue' idea is a different and less ambitious way to 
integrate with non-seastar threads that got some upstream buy-in from Avi.