From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vuonglv@viettel.com.vn>
Received: from mailfilter03.viettel.com.vn (mailfilter03.viettel.com.vn
 [125.235.240.55]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABF2330D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 May 2017 04:54:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,290,1491238800"; d="scan'208,217";a="34027821"
Received: from 125.235.240.44.adsl.viettel.vn (HELO mta1.viettel.com.vn)
 ([125.235.240.44])
 by mailfilter03.viettel.com.vn with ESMTP; 05 May 2017 09:54:00 +0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mta1.viettel.com.vn (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14F160A08C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from mta1.viettel.com.vn ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mta1.viettel.com.vn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)
 with ESMTP id mM8qSpZbk0Zt for <dev@dpdk.org>;
 Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mta1.viettel.com.vn (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C3860A022
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at 
Received: from mta1.viettel.com.vn ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mta1.viettel.com.vn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
 with ESMTP id hXVnIl3AaASI for <dev@dpdk.org>;
 Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from vuonglv.vttek (unknown [203.113.138.20])
 by mta1.viettel.com.vn (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91D06609FAE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
To: dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <874b0c85-f02e-1fb9-c648-1f0570d92db2@viettel.com.vn>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
MilterAction: FORWARD
Date: Fri,  5 May 2017 09:51:58 +0700 (ICT)
From: vuonglv@viettel.com.vn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-dev] How to using add/lookup hash table in multithread
	environment
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 02:54:14 -0000

Hi DPDK team,
I am using DPDK to build a program in multithread environment.
I use 1 thread (on 1 core) to add and delete hash table key ( by 
rte_hash_add_key() and rte_hash_del_key() function); And use 8 thread 
(on 8 others core) to lookup (by rte_hash_lookup() function ).
As I know, rte_hash_lookup() function is /multi-thread safe,/ and 
te_hash_add_key() and rte_hash_del_key() function is not /multi-thread 
safe/.
So: Do I need using /lock/ when I add or delete key by 1 thread while 8 
others thread is looking-up?


Many thanks,
Vuong Le