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 866DD45894; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55084427AC; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E16402BE for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 07:48:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8683dc3b17so11757866b.3 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:48:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1724910529; x=1725515329; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Jj7z5dyXptx5YAePUWoYhvkkxrhF+84N3HVeHDMqKyk=; b=Tp5aDGYMT56xRX2V1/JbBZh0dNXppwjPKbdy1TZpjvxRJB6fjgHH6CezYg8qn38y7b GwDIN2chxvokPkNx+YLtxwXxzySXo8xVm+J0y8ZxunUCswvga9hDu5ZPBNoN5Mj/7Ppb 1SiKkei3u0c3KpKwgMVViyX83ZxdSyirlzgxIuBUmwNmIMUgdCYRfPG8fTiyqQ6ZNMi1 moS4nu7udjlhLVTGVnryZTqNFGalAidmJ0ZS9l61Br+6zCRGUG90JahOgXtcCrnaZ+WV a634UmWb0BSAdjRleqdtiTTXZ77zpy6kzYx+Zw27WG28nkrWkHu2EIbXL1+yqhZ8oFrD IRGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1724910529; x=1725515329; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Jj7z5dyXptx5YAePUWoYhvkkxrhF+84N3HVeHDMqKyk=; b=KgvMdGlIRbJOH/NEw6ZAGX6LiQi2x7dUFY2RMVeTVyQddJkP4E3/giSH2iy4LG7QT7 IhFabBJmc3fJ0yORvUJoBlFVBjVFB9CQPE2pOxCW4qmGA5OkzzkD0oU2OMgIJHl5bEhn rfHv9Ry5YufeH7AqfXEYHu09U20SzPzvHCY1O4g4CKLa/Aa+/erzNlQc0bWpXMalVF1Z 7lYIjadnfAGu75K1j9x9e5pIJvNTpddgS92TDDM51D1WLt6AMA4FKcYzvlWnXqtkD8G8 Te2cQLBf+sz7VQLhF7tj6V/rLkkuqiC86VvcpwmmuSj/FYJmKqK+hms2Mw/IFKumDibs h+kw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWL1yOuIedVOTZ5iFLn6hdRoS2M5rl+MlK30GFTe+JMt+nwZuwAb7tNA1WSNGS9EfcU1LY=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwQ/otLZCanHOsE0PH39WdhxPlQju40VBGoHouYPyeFHK48QK/X gW3eikFIWx/LCueIHN7US+OB2YVdbqB2luOLR22fPdK7snrPmN3BcdwF7BQnkDxkiNyid0JmpHU rIptHsseobgPoTjqsKYg9iH3+hn4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHFX/ozvEC4r+pso4GWwzKZBzmsc0xx0ti3wRWCAJ/aCyKEVnxwbK3X6a16H1iw4HLxyXPe6EDrkp+0jqtiSDg= X-Received: by 2002:a50:cc47:0:b0:5be:f295:a192 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c21ed401f3mr1658583a12.16.1724910527951; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:48:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <18c7afe0-3fc0-4d4d-807f-57870197c32d@amd.com> <20240828102316.0a72bbb2@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20240828102316.0a72bbb2@hermes.local> From: rajesh goel Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:18:35 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bihash Support in DPDK To: stephen@networkplumber.org Cc: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" , Ferruh Yigit , "Wang, Yipeng1" , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000049bb460620cc07a3" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:20:20 +0200 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 --00000000000049bb460620cc07a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Stephen , Vladimir, Let me explore DPDK RCU more, if it helps my application. Will get back with my results. Regards. Rajesh On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:53=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Hemminger < stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:54:27 +0000 > "Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > Bihash I mean bounded index what Vpp supports. > > > > Iam looking for the bucket level lock support. Currently Iam using hash > table shared by multiple process or multiple core/threads. So I have to > take the write lock by single core and then read lock by multiple cores t= o > read the value wrote in this hash table. Multiple readers are getting > blocked due to this. I want to avoid this to increase performance. > > > > Let me know your thoughts on this. > > > > Regards > > Rajesh > > RCU is always faster than reader/writer locks. > Reader/Writer locks are slower than simple spin lock unless reader holds > for a long time. > --00000000000049bb460620cc07a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Stephen , Vladimir,
Let me explore DPDK RCU mor= e, if it helps my application.

Will get back with = my results.

Regards.
Rajesh
<= br>
On Wed,= Aug 28, 2024 at 10:53=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15= :54:27 +0000
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Bihash I mean bounded index what Vpp supports.
>
> Iam looking for the bucket level lock support. Currently Iam using has= h table shared by multiple process or multiple core/threads. So I have to t= ake the write lock by single core and then read lock by multiple cores to r= ead the value wrote in this hash table. Multiple readers are getting blocke= d due to this. I want to avoid this to increase performance.
>
> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>
> Regards
> Rajesh

RCU is always faster than reader/writer locks.
Reader/Writer locks are slower than simple spin lock unless reader holds fo= r a long time.
--00000000000049bb460620cc07a3--