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 3D267A034F; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:44:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD892952; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:44:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C37235 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:44:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FAF22756; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:44:30 -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=uds/CFeGqeJIqoK8rzwJiJKK2srCXmwVeqp7NHjndUI=; b=CX0CCuol1PU3 52LB1gRLfpWH68ottvj7lpfz5n1RTgi1c5cFBDKQmSOHAr/+CY+ECZIxoZutXn2k Xd3HB1AdSh1AAMSw9+CV64d6JRuHNA8FHO+N73jsXLulBQWWzP1icvaO/H+vmu7j PY5DAPpths9I6aZH1p1jTZ9+kVKaFho= 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=uds/CFeGqeJIqoK8rzwJiJKK2srCXmwVeqp7NHjnd UI=; b=khyORTRpRRFoN6MWvlGPjpKlLl0/N28EIJ65Xu5zKLkmXsZNGGddCLABr vGiQEkl0UnuYK9MmmSQVbsTipLiNOJHWmh2LP1cFu0yKS7Ch59c2dR3xyIr6I2gG t4nfSwTwulSl+v2DRQPCsWcOnzPi6hOG2orTu0W8e+CEy7u7Sma2Zmtro7ADcI6G AnA8NdfT7hZdLhtwy+xqDsygkaIvWsLwAf/5xlo5FeQrKtpcxC1oLBbYdKFSL15K rzsCMo7MufCEVfqNYC1aLN1s/NVRRqEaqsBKkMoeZfLeslDO0fZVe0beqlkOskMA SgAfComzJPbTiebW1Rbc4WCHRVg8g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudeivddgtdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr 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 DBEA53060060; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:44:28 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wang, Yipeng1" Cc: Dharmik Thakkar , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:44:27 +0100 Message-ID: <9842802.2mR3ADNnM5@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20191121181759.11401-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <10640783.jF6kOFs2fc@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 23:02, 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, we 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 with [20.02].