From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0041B69B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5890321C46; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=B3BnxIzlB0nJGqxVuOJNUpKVuYwKe8bQDtHNrrdciiM=; b=aXYw6GnPmOn2 wv2MrW/TJgx/mAwA+JUr0a+40j/5Pu+77MbeVhEU8hoZlxHkfniAwIv3AAo38hdq A9seNTod0NB+1kwJe+3h3YlTTONm0B2JAUsrXE/8oAqA2c9sS0QnL2/rxwUWoDeE 4ubJahCAUWjAuIgb5ObtaYOgpcpS/Ks= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=B3BnxIzlB0nJGqxVuOJNUpKVuYwKe8bQDtHNrrdci iM=; b=WuR5aT0JLb5AFlPhepMCmp15aHqoyIEa6+bkqOlM01iiyoIRwGrK5SMSx MwXttXd4orkYSO97b+AfXoI9WD2shfBfvRAT5sNFBda4UBTarx1CqNJ706S66urY 3TwZBOwiquHIJP8fltVd8vOQOh5cqRXN6wynhst83LYp69bZ/cjBOYAAaqcgD2Ut WaNiaMMnJhuA9Ka6xXuhm2V1XCDs1ITjg+618VFBfZDEPMSWS1qU8/lERnIe1rRu FMwkVu06ENe8S5Qcyt5cGcgcjkjZBr1qThlzfNJ+CdgQemgZLbiFhDkd3GcKSADx qskuF/EA1x0clTjPSJRVj8sLSYXiA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrfeefgdejfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C82E8103C9; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "paulmck@linux.ibm.com" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" , Dharmik Thakkar , Malvika Gupta , nd Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1688685.zmFuPQMSnT@xps> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580148A98F26@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20181122033055.3431-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580148A98F26@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] rcu: add RCU library supporting QSBR mechanism X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:18:08 -0000 17/04/2019 15:39, Ananyev, Konstantin: > In general, I still think that sync primitives better to stay inlined - there is no much point to create ones > and then figure out that no-one using them because they are too slow. > Though if there is no real perf difference between inlined and normal - no point to keep it inlined. > About RCU lib, my thought to have inlined version for 19.05 and do further perf testing with it > (as I remember there were suggestions about using it in l3fwd for guarding routing table or so). > If we'll find there is no real difference - move it to not-inlined version in 19.08. > It is experimental for now - so could be changed without formal ABI breakage. I agree, it looks reasonnable to take v6 of RCU patches as an experimental implementation. Then we can run some tests and discuss about inlining or not before promoting it as a stable API. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E22A00E6 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE8C1B6A1; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0041B69B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5890321C46; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=B3BnxIzlB0nJGqxVuOJNUpKVuYwKe8bQDtHNrrdciiM=; b=aXYw6GnPmOn2 wv2MrW/TJgx/mAwA+JUr0a+40j/5Pu+77MbeVhEU8hoZlxHkfniAwIv3AAo38hdq A9seNTod0NB+1kwJe+3h3YlTTONm0B2JAUsrXE/8oAqA2c9sS0QnL2/rxwUWoDeE 4ubJahCAUWjAuIgb5ObtaYOgpcpS/Ks= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=B3BnxIzlB0nJGqxVuOJNUpKVuYwKe8bQDtHNrrdci iM=; b=WuR5aT0JLb5AFlPhepMCmp15aHqoyIEa6+bkqOlM01iiyoIRwGrK5SMSx MwXttXd4orkYSO97b+AfXoI9WD2shfBfvRAT5sNFBda4UBTarx1CqNJ706S66urY 3TwZBOwiquHIJP8fltVd8vOQOh5cqRXN6wynhst83LYp69bZ/cjBOYAAaqcgD2Ut WaNiaMMnJhuA9Ka6xXuhm2V1XCDs1ITjg+618VFBfZDEPMSWS1qU8/lERnIe1rRu FMwkVu06ENe8S5Qcyt5cGcgcjkjZBr1qThlzfNJ+CdgQemgZLbiFhDkd3GcKSADx qskuF/EA1x0clTjPSJRVj8sLSYXiA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrfeefgdejfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C82E8103C9; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:18:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "paulmck@linux.ibm.com" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" , Dharmik Thakkar , Malvika Gupta , nd Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1688685.zmFuPQMSnT@xps> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580148A98F26@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20181122033055.3431-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580148A98F26@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] rcu: add RCU library supporting QSBR mechanism X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190417141803.TUGUfdGzs-iFA8dDPOfmP_cs51BKXTYq1HfyWFMhiSw@z> 17/04/2019 15:39, Ananyev, Konstantin: > In general, I still think that sync primitives better to stay inlined - there is no much point to create ones > and then figure out that no-one using them because they are too slow. > Though if there is no real perf difference between inlined and normal - no point to keep it inlined. > About RCU lib, my thought to have inlined version for 19.05 and do further perf testing with it > (as I remember there were suggestions about using it in l3fwd for guarding routing table or so). > If we'll find there is no real difference - move it to not-inlined version in 19.08. > It is experimental for now - so could be changed without formal ABI breakage. I agree, it looks reasonnable to take v6 of RCU patches as an experimental implementation. Then we can run some tests and discuss about inlining or not before promoting it as a stable API.