From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>
Cc: "Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Gobriel, Sameh" <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/hash: remove unnecessary locks in lock-free
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:14:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1923530.xkvgYvHMKK@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AAB3B6E5-5940-4BA7-AB59-2BA3EC25C3DD@arm.com>
25/11/2019 23:55, Dharmik Thakkar:
>
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 25/11/2019 23:02, Wang, Yipeng1:
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> >>> 25/11/2019 19:49, Wang, Yipeng1:
> >>>> From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar@arm.com]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remove __hash_rw_reader_unlock() calls from lock free hash lookup
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>> Acked-by: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the patch!
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me, there is no motivation (the why) in this patch.
> >>> Is it critical? which gain?
> >>>
> >> [Wang, Yipeng]
> >> Thomas, do you mean the commit message is not clear enough?
> >> I think it is self-explained that in the "lock-free" implementation, we don't need
> >> "read_unlock()" and the subject line also says that.
> >> But it is always better to be more explicit.
> >
> > I understand that it is not needed.
> > But it doesn't say what is the impact of having this unlock.
> > Is there a real performance impact?
> > Is it critical enough to be merged in 19.11-rc4?
> > If it is not candidate for 19.11, it is better to prepend the title with [20.02].
> >
> Thomas, I don’t think there is any performance impact. This is more of a clean-up patch.
> It is not critical as those “read_unlock()” don’t cause any error.
> Should I update the patch title with [20.02]?
No that's fine, it's clear now.
Thank you
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-25 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-21 18:17 Dharmik Thakkar
2019-11-25 18:49 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2019-11-25 21:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-25 22:02 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2019-11-25 22:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-25 22:55 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2019-11-25 23:14 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2020-01-17 16:42 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-01-19 23:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1923530.xkvgYvHMKK@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=sameh.gobriel@intel.com \
--cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).