From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2872A5E for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:14:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2016 02:14:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,354,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="936665374" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2016 02:14:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:16:14 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ilya Maximets , Huawei Xie , bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, Dyasly Sergey , Jerin Jacob , Jianbo Liu , Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <20160318091614.GT979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <10269895.UfVQWhbqLk@xps13> <20160318080035.GS979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <9470086.ZYvecjaNVJ@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9470086.ZYvecjaNVJ@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC v3 0/3] Thread safe rte_vhost_enqueue_burst(). X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:14:55 -0000 On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:09:04AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-03-18 16:00, Yuanhan Liu: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-02-24 14:47, Ilya Maximets: > > > > Implementation of rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() based on lockless ring-buffer > > > > algorithm and contains almost all to be thread-safe, but it's not. > > > > > > > > This set adds required changes. > > > > > > > > First patch in set is a standalone patch that fixes many times discussed > > > > issue with barriers on different architectures. > > > > > > > > Second and third adds fixes to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safe. > > > > > > My understanding is that we do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks. > > > > > > Huawei, Yuanhan, Bruce, do you confirm? > > > > Huawei would like to do that, and I'm behind that. Let's do it. > > I'm not sure to understand. What do you want to do exactly? I was thinking we are on the same page :( "do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks" == "remove lockless Rx/Tx, the proposal from Huawei", right? In another way, I'm behind the following patch from Huawei: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/9740/ --yliu