DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ruifeng Wang" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] 回复: [PATCH v7 1/5] eal: add new definitions for wait scheme
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:27:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB9PR08MB69239486BF05EAFCE4F2FE30C8869@DB9PR08MB6923.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1MKjV+=fHB1Sy55tYyN-xngsqs5Xj=3dFV6EuoLK+WFLA@mail.gmail.com>



> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> 发送时间: Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:51 PM
> 收件人: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
> 抄送: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>;
> nd <nd@arm.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; David Marchand
> <david.marchand@redhat.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Mattias Rönnblom
> <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] eal: add new definitions for wait scheme
> 
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:11 PM Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> > > 发送时间: Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:16 PM
> > > 收件人: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
> > > 抄送: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dpdk-dev
> <dev@dpdk.org>; nd
> > > <nd@arm.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
> > > Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; David Marchand
> > > <david.marchand@redhat.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Mattias
> Rönnblom
> > > <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
> > > 主题: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] eal: add new definitions for wait scheme
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:26 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Introduce macros as generic interface for address monitoring.
> > > > For different size, encapsulate '__LOAD_EXC_16', '__LOAD_EXC_32'
> > > > and '__LOAD_EXC_64' into a new macro '__LOAD_EXC'.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, to prevent compilation warning in arm:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > > 'warning: implicit declaration of function ...'
> > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > > Delete 'undef' constructions for '__LOAD_EXC_xx', '__SEVL' and
> '__WFE'.
> > > > And add ‘__RTE_ARM’ for these macros to fix the namespace.
> > > >
> > > > This is because original macros are undefine at the end of the file.
> > > > If new macro 'rte_wait_event' calls them in other files, they will
> > > > be seen as 'not defined'.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > > +static __rte_always_inline void
> > > > +rte_wait_until_equal_16(volatile uint16_t *addr, uint16_t expected,
> > > > +               int memorder)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       uint16_t value;
> > > > +
> > > > +       assert(memorder == __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE || memorder ==
> > > > + __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > Assert is not good in the library, Why not RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON here
> > [Feifei] This line is the original code which has nothing to do with
> > this patch, I can change it in the next version.
> > >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_16(addr, value, memorder)
> > > >         if (value != expected) {
> > > > -               __SEVL()
> > > > +                __RTE_ARM_SEVL()
> > > >                 do {
> > > > -                       __WFE()
> > > > -                       __LOAD_EXC_16(addr, value, memorder)
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_WFE()
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_16(addr, value,
> > > > + memorder)
> > > >                 } while (value != expected);
> > > >         }
> > > > -#undef __LOAD_EXC_16
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static __rte_always_inline void
> > > > @@ -77,34 +124,14 @@ rte_wait_until_equal_32(volatile uint32_t
> > > > *addr, uint32_t expected,
> > > >
> > > >         assert(memorder == __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE || memorder ==
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >
> > > > -       /*
> > > > -        * Atomic exclusive load from addr, it returns the 32-bit content of
> > > > -        * *addr while making it 'monitored',when it is written by someone
> > > > -        * else, the 'monitored' state is cleared and a event is generated
> > > > -        * implicitly to exit WFE.
> > > > -        */
> > > > -#define __LOAD_EXC_32(src, dst, memorder) {              \
> > > > -       if (memorder == __ATOMIC_RELAXED) {              \
> > > > -               asm volatile("ldxr %w[tmp], [%x[addr]]"  \
> > > > -                       : [tmp] "=&r" (dst)              \
> > > > -                       : [addr] "r"(src)                \
> > > > -                       : "memory");                     \
> > > > -       } else {                                         \
> > > > -               asm volatile("ldaxr %w[tmp], [%x[addr]]" \
> > > > -                       : [tmp] "=&r" (dst)              \
> > > > -                       : [addr] "r"(src)                \
> > > > -                       : "memory");                     \
> > > > -       } }
> > > > -
> > > > -       __LOAD_EXC_32(addr, value, memorder)
> > > > +       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_32(addr, value, memorder)
> > > >         if (value != expected) {
> > > > -               __SEVL()
> > > > +               __RTE_ARM_SEVL()
> > > >                 do {
> > > > -                       __WFE()
> > > > -                       __LOAD_EXC_32(addr, value, memorder)
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_WFE()
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_32(addr, value,
> > > > + memorder)
> > > >                 } while (value != expected);
> > > >         }
> > > > -#undef __LOAD_EXC_32
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static __rte_always_inline void
> > > > @@ -115,38 +142,33 @@ rte_wait_until_equal_64(volatile uint64_t
> > > > *addr, uint64_t expected,
> > > >
> > > >         assert(memorder == __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE || memorder ==
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > remove assert and change to BUILD_BUG_ON
> > [Feifei] OK
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -       /*
> > > > -        * Atomic exclusive load from addr, it returns the 64-bit content of
> > > > -        * *addr while making it 'monitored',when it is written by someone
> > > > -        * else, the 'monitored' state is cleared and a event is generated
> > > > -        * implicitly to exit WFE.
> > > > -        */
> > > > -#define __LOAD_EXC_64(src, dst, memorder) {              \
> > > > -       if (memorder == __ATOMIC_RELAXED) {              \
> > > > -               asm volatile("ldxr %x[tmp], [%x[addr]]"  \
> > > > -                       : [tmp] "=&r" (dst)              \
> > > > -                       : [addr] "r"(src)                \
> > > > -                       : "memory");                     \
> > > > -       } else {                                         \
> > > > -               asm volatile("ldaxr %x[tmp], [%x[addr]]" \
> > > > -                       : [tmp] "=&r" (dst)              \
> > > > -                       : [addr] "r"(src)                \
> > > > -                       : "memory");                     \
> > > > -       } }
> > > > -
> > > > -       __LOAD_EXC_64(addr, value, memorder)
> > > > +       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_64(addr, value, memorder)
> > > >         if (value != expected) {
> > > > -               __SEVL()
> > > > +               __RTE_ARM_SEVL()
> > > >                 do {
> > > > -                       __WFE()
> > > > -                       __LOAD_EXC_64(addr, value, memorder)
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_WFE()
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC_64(addr, value,
> > > > + memorder)
> > > >                 } while (value != expected);
> > > >         }
> > > >  }
> > > > -#undef __LOAD_EXC_64
> > > >
> > > > -#undef __SEVL
> > > > -#undef __WFE
> > > > +#define rte_wait_event(addr, mask, cond, expected, memorder)
> \
> > > > +do {                                                                      \
> > > > +       RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(memorder));                \
> > > > +       RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(memorder != __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE &&
> > > \
> > > > +                               memorder != __ATOMIC_RELAXED);            \
> > > > +       uint32_t size = sizeof(*(addr)) << 3;
> > >
> > > Add const
> > [Feifei] OK.
> > > > +       typeof(*(addr)) expected_value = (expected);                      \
> > > > +       typeof(*(addr)) value = 0;
> > >
> > > Why zero assignment
> > I will delete this initialization.
> > >                                         \
> > > > +       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC((addr), value, memorder, size)                 \
> > >
> > > Assert is not good in the library, Why not RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON here
> > [Feifei] For __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC, 'size' is known until code is running.
> > So it cannot check 'size' in the compile time and BUILD_BUG_ON doesn't
> work here.
> 
> uint32_t size = sizeof(*(addr)) << 3 value will get in comple time as _sizeof_ is
> preprocessor function.
> So I think, BUILD_BUG_ON is fine.
[Feifei] You are right. I try to with build_bug_on, it is OK to check 'size'.
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > > +       if ((value & (mask)) cond expected_value) {                       \
> > > > +               __RTE_ARM_SEVL()                                          \
> > > > +               do {                                                      \
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_WFE()                                   \
> > > > +                       __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC((addr), value,
> > > > + memorder,
> > > > + size) \
> > >
> > > if the address is the type of __int128_t. This logic will fail?
> > > Could you add 128bit support too and remove the assert from
> > > __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC
> > [Feifei] There is no 128bit case in library. And maybe there will be
> > 128bits case, we can add 128 path here. Now there is assert check in
> > __RTE_ARM_LOAD_EXC to check whether size is '16/32/64'.
> 
> API expects is only "addr" without any type so the application can use 128bit
> too.
> 
> Worst case for now we can fall back to __atomic_load_n() for  size 128, we
> dont want to break applications while using this API. Or add support for 128 in
> code.
> 
[Feifei] All right, I will try to add 128load in the next version.
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > > +               } while ((value & (mask)) cond expected_value);           \
> > > > +       }                                                                 \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > >
> > > >  #endif
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h
> > > > b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h
> > > > index 668ee4a184..d0c5b5a415 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h
> > > > @@ -111,6 +111,34 @@ rte_wait_until_equal_64(volatile uint64_t
> > > > *addr,
> > > uint64_t expected,
> > > >         while (__atomic_load_n(addr, memorder) != expected)
> > > >                 rte_pause();
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Wait until *addr breaks the condition, with a relaxed memory
> > > > + * ordering model meaning the loads around this API can be reordered.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @param addr
> > > > + *  A pointer to the memory location.
> > > > + * @param mask
> > > > + *  A mask of value bits in interest.
> > > > + * @param cond
> > > > + *  A symbol representing the condition.
> > > > + * @param expected
> > > > + *  An expected value to be in the memory location.
> > > > + * @param memorder
> > > > + *  Two different memory orders that can be specified:
> > > > + *  __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE and __ATOMIC_RELAXED. These map to
> > > > + *  C++11 memory orders with the same names, see the C++11
> > > > +standard or
> > > > + *  the GCC wiki on atomic synchronization for detailed definition.
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define rte_wait_event(addr, mask, cond, expected, memorder)
> > > \
> > > > +do {                                                                               \
> > > > +       RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(memorder));
> > > \
> > > > +       RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(memorder != __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE &&
> > > \
> > > > +                               memorder != __ATOMIC_RELAXED);                     \
> > > > +       typeof(*(addr)) expected_value = (expected);                               \
> > > > +       while ((__atomic_load_n((addr), (memorder)) & (mask)) cond
> > > expected_value) \
> > > > +               rte_pause();                                                       \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > >  #endif
> > > >
> > > >  #endif /* _RTE_PAUSE_H_ */
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-28  9:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 113+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-02  5:32 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] add new API for wait until scheme Feifei Wang
2021-09-02  5:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-09-02  5:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 2/5] eal: use wait until scheme for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-09-02  5:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] eal: use wait until scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-09-02  5:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait until scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-09-02  5:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait until scheme Feifei Wang
2021-09-02 15:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] add new API for " Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-03  7:02   ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:58   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:58   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:59   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:59   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-09-24 18:07     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-09-26  2:19       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-09-23  9:59   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:32   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-07 16:18     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-12  8:09       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-13 15:03         ` [dpdk-dev] " Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-13 17:00           ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-10-14  3:14             ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-14  3:08           ` Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:32   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-10-07 15:50     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-07 17:40       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-20  6:20         ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-09-26  6:33   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/5] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-21 16:24       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-25  9:20         ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-25 14:28           ` [dpdk-dev] " Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-26  1:08             ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-22  0:10       ` [dpdk-dev] " Jerin Jacob
2021-10-25  9:30         ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-25  9:43           ` [dpdk-dev] " Jerin Jacob
2021-10-26  1:11             ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-10-20  8:45     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:01 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/5] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:08     ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  9:46       ` [dpdk-dev] " Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-26  9:59         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-27  6:56           ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:18     ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  9:43       ` [dpdk-dev] " Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-26 12:56         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-27  7:04           ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  7:31             ` Feifei Wang
2021-10-27 14:47             ` [dpdk-dev] " Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-28  6:24               ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-26  8:02   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  8:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  8:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/4] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  8:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/4] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  8:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/4] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-10-27 11:16     ` Mattias Rönnblom
2021-10-28  6:32       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-27  8:10   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/4] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-27 10:57   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] add new definitions for wait scheme Jerin Jacob
2021-10-28  6:33     ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  6:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/5] " Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  6:56   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  7:15     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-28  7:40       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  7:51         ` [dpdk-dev] " Jerin Jacob
2021-10-28  9:27           ` Feifei Wang [this message]
2021-10-28 13:14     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-28  6:56   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  6:56   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  7:02     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-28  7:14       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-28  6:56   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-10-28 13:15     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-28  6:56   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-29  8:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/5] add new definitions for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-29  8:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/5] eal: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-29 13:54     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-31  8:38     ` David Marchand
2021-11-01  2:29       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-10-29  8:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/5] eal: use wait event for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-10-29 13:55     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-31  8:37     ` David Marchand
2021-10-29  8:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 3/5] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-10-29 13:55     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-31  8:37     ` David Marchand
2021-10-29  8:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-10-31  8:37     ` David Marchand
2021-10-29  8:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme Feifei Wang
2021-10-29 13:58     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-10-31  8:38       ` David Marchand
2021-11-01 12:44       ` David Hunt
2021-11-01  6:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 0/5] add new helper for wait scheme Feifei Wang
2021-11-01  6:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/5] eal: add a new generic " Feifei Wang
2021-11-01  6:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 2/5] pflock: use wait until scheme for read pflock Feifei Wang
2021-11-03 14:46     ` David Marchand
2021-11-04  1:24       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-11-01  6:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 3/5] mcslock: use wait until scheme for mcslock Feifei Wang
2021-11-01  6:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 4/5] bpf: use wait until scheme for Rx/Tx iteration Feifei Wang
2021-11-01  6:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 5/5] distributor: use wait until scheme Feifei Wang
2021-11-01 16:05     ` Pattan, Reshma
2021-11-02  2:00       ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2021-11-03 14:55   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 0/5] add new helper for wait scheme David Marchand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=DB9PR08MB69239486BF05EAFCE4F2FE30C8869@DB9PR08MB6923.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=feifei.wang2@arm.com \
    --cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).