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 AF590A052A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:21:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908DE1DC3A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:21:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B8A1DC26 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:21:17 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594383676; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ofg5X8TfySeNi3ZlPTikelQwx/hAzAcNUWvJBo/ANMg=; b=a5KJ3K7uoO/UQ8UnmnHDyR6mOdy1XqEiX2YjukeYYZ5xr/Q0c9iIU6Ayez2N5eQAFvOnwS MchRuiijGz75oF+f+MhuHTziHcvLkoC5X0Hse6QZMBb4gdTyNbTWuhdDxStApyVCqZHCpl pdcsLB2kxOvTVnYHYw94Tu68IuNx2fg= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-56-L93nBnRRNHSywcrpWLi8rQ-1; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: L93nBnRRNHSywcrpWLi8rQ-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id x1so2372925uar.4 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ofg5X8TfySeNi3ZlPTikelQwx/hAzAcNUWvJBo/ANMg=; b=i6N17lbeD2z0aB3qUclbe268vlt6xvoFV+xp5dz7nObK2Th5GSe1cGsjQNTDFcMLBl XhSqdLO//w1xOMg0mYk8ISp5tQizkrQK0O/9ZEMXlU2qThXHvLC6NvW7w2IwxqhEEHYk GV10N0uJEIZGWS+Yxj4cDc0dSDwKbwIBE8GKaEwVqvfZRGOb/uEyoRTAMD7QWN6w6R+o 8wLil6onE4Uoda/eyZz+6RqpHsl07cYeO1yf4kyvYDzvPfiv783vUcDL8LZAO1lD58ZM AFBAGiAJcR6mAkWk/TJupRdE8rs7ZMEKiSI8U0oUUmzaeaL79Z1cCIe1ByFh842oHEKB cxOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319ifRuGhHRwBHtEaD+nuamONiajhqLt7vZxzzOrB+hL7YblwTz BD9tDRgI3Hbvw2nsUWDuWbaAuJbecK2uP7Znixw4wZkoA7JcZsiA5mDXSKdrWZ00NCY/cyHmB77 zbC1vXZNfPDy4nkyPpt8= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:acc2:: with SMTP id v185mr12983642vke.18.1594383675015; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2HrpkcOhbecGADWYx6rW/i5g6LsLqqbgyayhPYMy4xxMZmPgmWQNHH5AU0O812JGZj6ekoLTbLLoH3pjMFqY= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:acc2:: with SMTP id v185mr12983629vke.18.1594383674747; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:21:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190906094534.36060-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <20200710022227.103963-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20200710022227.103963-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:21:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ruifeng Wang Cc: dev , Ray Kinsella , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , nd , Vladimir Medvedkin Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/3] RCU integration with LPM library 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" On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:22 AM Ruifeng Wang wrote: > > This patchset integrates RCU QSBR support with LPM library. > > Resource reclaimation implementation was splitted from the original > series, and has already been part of RCU library. Rework the series > to base LPM integration on RCU reclaimation APIs. > > New API rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add is introduced for application to > register a RCU variable that LPM library will use. This provides > user the handle to enable RCU that integrated in LPM library. > > Functional tests and performance tests are added to cover the > integration with RCU. Series applied. A comment though. I am surprised to see the defer queue is still exposed out of lpm. +int rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add(struct rte_lpm *lpm, struct rte_lpm_rcu_config *cfg, + struct rte_rcu_qsbr_dq **dq); If this is intended, we will need unit tests for this parameter as I could see none. Else, it can be removed. Please send a followup patch for rc2. Thanks. -- David Marchand