From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B284C2C67 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:36:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p65so60205200wmp.1 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:36:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yW8KNjkZM3gRU56XdBxJjOzS9UJ7BaodcalQQkppCt0=; b=ZKh6XqHWFHiAguTD13e7yEf8JRjkg0G2OZEUjbvK8pePnDd3xVphlbm8S40oWSj9Ck H2kVT7SxbdQ3wu9YQRZy7jw38DE9FczqfC+vg+UFcO8FsQJf9sWAsgDPg2ZCVUmA1HpQ 2NQlwCdIzKQ6WLx2kmlNa8TMX94SnIlulct6q1JokfAVCfiF3hJz4ek0g729HqXgRj8i fAxDBpow50NNAyswFoqNh/aAyx6u7bozDuI/wP1KQgad9RxaZacoiQjH+oURu08Ze5BG eqisyjdYwu8SdCdW8qUiT9jb5wXBs/NYHulsRFnTc0fcCzSnu75Y58EJmxOLrO973Eo4 10Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yW8KNjkZM3gRU56XdBxJjOzS9UJ7BaodcalQQkppCt0=; b=Nsb1dlD3DrOpuThh1MwskUgrGz2VQ7TgFgDo+ne4DYwdZMkS91aXwOxI/Cc1qpHuV7 2ji6tZOxXagjOwONbon1VBD29uwzSZ0XY1tPSSBLNV77VpmBbiKReKSJX4e+oRXS6xfw Cl6I4J05bmFG1rMV0+w4jxC+ETwstZD0Vot7S+P7GlWK+08r5wPBu5BT3LfVWbtJN77s ZwgJGdbEI7cEHDxXJOcqSIMSbBHfhztGEVleG5szgJSqaq2kADP8plVwnuUdhSQCJkiv /GN/JS9kcZIL0j/1Xvp5QptwdWY7UOMGA+mzb7ziFQKGmvHETSD4WX6Q7MDZ1HzSD0uU KPiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJRQScSxtnHQ5ldfXtv/ILCHNNPfJWg3ulwXMPcIiBT8NkZCJ1rwGATEe+Ba+VieV2M X-Received: by 10.194.61.209 with SMTP id s17mr14809192wjr.35.1458293787545; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (91.111.75.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.75.111.91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cb2sm11469152wjc.16.2016.03.18.02.36.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:36:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Yuanhan Liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ilya Maximets , Huawei Xie , bruce.richardson@intel.com, Dyasly Sergey , Jerin Jacob , Jianbo Liu , Tetsuya Mukawa Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:34:56 +0100 Message-ID: <3519170.fnd0yd7nVF@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160318091614.GT979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <9470086.ZYvecjaNVJ@xps13> <20160318091614.GT979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 09:36:27 -0000 2016-03-18 17:16, Yuanhan Liu: > 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 :( Yes we are on the same page. But it's better to make things explicit. There should be no lock in Rx/Tx drivers (including vhost). The locking must be done by the caller (application level). That's why this series "Thread safe rte_vhost_enqueue_burst" is rejected. > "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/ The patch "vhost: remove lockless enqueue to the virtio ring" must me reworked in 2 patches: 1/ announce API change 2/ remove locks Please avoid talking about removing "lockless" when actually removing locks. Thanks