From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAABA04C2; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:14:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636B02BCE; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:14:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA612952 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:14:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D43227D8; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:14:40 -0500 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=d9aV7gRwO8M6uiYAHw30CM7ZposZYrMcmXmoA3dNRxQ=; b=c+OJQIqlCGsR 6fqfswerI2fHyx7e6gMVQgDj/vgKjeBpQrLgimss94s7+8KSjPnxm0mz0l5en5GY iKRFOP+RH1ZxKyBcWyDvzw9MgQZob5dCh1dwvcnZlM9veYQvipgicGNBXaZRNDQA y6DuC3afhuu5CDG9VzO5mIfGcPuOEtE= 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=fm1; bh=d9aV7gRwO8M6uiYAHw30CM7ZposZYrMcmXmoA3dNR xQ=; b=AvjLniv2CIchhqBGf+QJ6CAaG1l7i16T820HbhmfPOLRtz85P9okkNuzS bentUHB/9nP7Km8kxl3sKXiE5l4P5WUlI2uTwqj2IxohUXpSlw6EvKymtwxhOei3 G4ym5NhHoC2WrfHd927erORguaDJ5Mw67jB+6sC0Py6LdJA5iOaEsGqn9vMeye8d Bp/nuVQi+r3VA44Bk/fiYgsarVImmnN1tDUkbaJbI97c5On1Vu8WZxb6hDEozUao z3xprb/FKr2i/D8bYsN5GcZ8wLHgS41X1GHfeQTqfYw76teGtz9Yr8v4v+zrtfl5 avmh3nfAnagN1zn9y8AnUnGq3/o4g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudeivddgtdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpehhuhgrrhhmrdgtohhmnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeen ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 1E3663060062; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:14:39 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Dharmik Thakkar Cc: "Wang, Yipeng1" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , Honnappa Nagarahalli Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:14:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1923530.xkvgYvHMKK@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20191121181759.11401-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <9842802.2mR3ADNnM5@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/hash: remove unnecessary locks in lock-free 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" 25/11/2019 23:55, Dharmik Thakkar: >=20 > > On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrot= e: > > > > 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 > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > >>>>> --- > >>>> Acked-by: Yipeng Wang > >>>> > >>>> 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, w= e 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 wit= h [20.02]. > > > Thomas, I don=E2=80=99t think there is any performance impact. This is mo= re of a clean-up patch. > It is not critical as those =E2=80=9Cread_unlock()=E2=80=9D don=E2=80=99t= cause any error. > Should I update the patch title with [20.02]? No that's fine, it's clear now. Thank you