From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A0242B9B; Thu, 25 May 2023 17:26:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CE340DF8; Thu, 25 May 2023 17:26:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com (mail-pf1-f178.google.com [209.85.210.178]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6934440DDB for ; Thu, 25 May 2023 17:25:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-64d1e96c082so1793236b3a.1 for ; Thu, 25 May 2023 08:25:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1685028358; x=1687620358; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=rxpLD8V7Ci9sSMsmu96AxTJEGUq7aSLK8qSnDqXd3wA=; b=pvabRIs9uGUzLutlHycL/dcDpBXbUhQ8FL0WqeBfdwtl9AOJXAVV5G2eRRdDPXNxfm 8ztZXdNwfFyUQsMvXxhL/fypysasQprfdhPri6PckI7qOML6/rTgA1bTx6jiPwCxx4z7 IGEmA0lnsx2yCKESlHCslkwtg4o/4WCPSbaM90MtPJnqnVr1k4JBRgfa5agzRpc9Jj/H YBw2pfebGn1HJ3TSGiHR4gox+S1BXxMhydzoZfz6mlwBJEqOj+a/QQFiAfWoJbmBz0AQ Mi6BhYY2O0R+7+/9iGSQL4blEUCttzX/pjAfqYRltQ8CpaapPanBfxJA7Dv0PQPwUhEY G0+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685028358; x=1687620358; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rxpLD8V7Ci9sSMsmu96AxTJEGUq7aSLK8qSnDqXd3wA=; b=PKJHvJWSjNcEUlXFRlWiRzawPNHHZK80yXeIDg7uixh+tUUDqwjh0xHBJfUHJoKr6B yAM6SQDyDFHg+eSk+Afm33FrEe+7Q/9v81QdAyU/0qTDEGierqvAUQueeX5y6uCuRMQL 1C7nuVOGsoUdOQC3T0So0am0Fk09KWVBdBY0r0jAQXaS72iGPIP7vQ5hLH0C1Duk6hBZ 40/twG+MYodR6uIhKlhRKbO8wV7FZpptXgjqN2Saw7uUmFCa9H25jtPYtJeVAB4b88nY hZRcIqUP88AFr1BX4WxfslbbbVmbOUI+gKJyMQJtONXhMub4SSEcbXToVt26icM8xGDo hC5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyGiscFKeGsju1wMnGBmIrxrzYoJ2ExFn8e8+s2a1c/a7eDUVqm tugnWuZjQxd5hYjSBoUZUt9U5Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6Y8QMzI4qkSmH0Iy/F0/P0BZa4L1i8z6jFDVya3aoSo/PiINhujJZcWNPo+SKCaOM9P795xA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:b85:b0:645:d02d:9a83 with SMTP id g5-20020a056a000b8500b00645d02d9a83mr9690276pfj.17.1685028358482; Thu, 25 May 2023 08:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i25-20020aa79099000000b00642ea56f06fsm1349870pfa.0.2023.05.25.08.25.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 May 2023 08:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 08:25:56 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Anoob Joseph Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Akhil Goyal , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Konstantin Ananyev , Bernard Iremonger , Volodymyr Fialko , Hemant Agrawal , Mattias =?UTF-8?B?UsO2bm5ibG9t?= , Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda , "dev@dpdk.org" , Olivier Matz Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 21/22] pdcp: add thread safe processing Message-ID: <20230525082556.7d3fe8cb@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20230414174512.642-1-anoobj@marvell.com> <20230524160116.304-1-anoobj@marvell.com> <20230524160116.304-22-anoobj@marvell.com> <20230524113130.242a9b81@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, 25 May 2023 08:15:07 +0000 Anoob Joseph wrote: > [Anoob] With PDCP (& most other protocols), we have to update the states atomically. Application designers would have a choice of either use single thread or do multi-thread processing. If the library is designed for multi-thread and if application uses only single thread, then there would be unnecessary overheads from library. If library sticks to single-thread and if application needs more threads for scaling, then again it would become a library issue. > > Is your issue with providing such an option or is it about how it is implemented? IPsec also has a similar challenge and similar per SA configuration is provided in lib IPsec as well. If you want to provide unlocked access, then it should be done with another set of API's. The cost of conditional branch will be higher than atomic some times.