From: "Damjan Marion (damarion)" <damarion@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] spinlock: Move constructor function out of header file
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:12:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10B988F3-0462-48CD-98A9-4BEE718CD96A@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4595749.lyEKuAyhOb@xps13>
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 12:09, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-07-15 09:54, Damjan Marion:
>> So we don’t have much pending beside 2 patches for i40e which
>> Jeff submitted yesterday and they will i guess need to wait for 16.11.
>
> Yes these i40e patches will probably have to wait 16.11.
>
>> Only one which I have on my mind is:
>>
>> https://git.fd.io/cgit/vpp/tree/dpdk/dpdk-16.04_patches/0005-Allow-applications-to-override-rte_delay_us.patch
>>
>> This is big issue for us when running single-core, as some
>> drivers tend to call rte_delay_us for a long time, and that is
>> causing packet drops. I.e. if you do stop/start on one interface
>> and you are running BFD on another one, BFD will fail…
>>
>> Current patch is hack, it basically allows us to override
>> delay function so we can de-schedule it,
>> do some other useful work while waiting for delay to finish
>> and then give control back to original function…
>>
>> Maybe we can fix this by providing a delay callback functionality...
>
> Yes it could be an idea.
> Please send a RFC patch.
OK, I will ask one of our guys to work on it...
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: "Damjan Marion (damarion)" <damarion@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] spinlock: Move constructor function out of header file
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:14:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10B988F3-0462-48CD-98A9-4BEE718CD96A@cisco.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20160716111448.8CYu1UztWA9gO1ioY0zEwgxcCljrO3x1e-nPTxNsu98@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4595749.lyEKuAyhOb@xps13>
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 12:09, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-07-15 09:54, Damjan Marion:
>> So we don’t have much pending beside 2 patches for i40e which
>> Jeff submitted yesterday and they will i guess need to wait for 16.11.
>
> Yes these i40e patches will probably have to wait 16.11.
>
>> Only one which I have on my mind is:
>>
>> https://git.fd.io/cgit/vpp/tree/dpdk/dpdk-16.04_patches/0005-Allow-applications-to-override-rte_delay_us.patch
>>
>> This is big issue for us when running single-core, as some
>> drivers tend to call rte_delay_us for a long time, and that is
>> causing packet drops. I.e. if you do stop/start on one interface
>> and you are running BFD on another one, BFD will fail…
>>
>> Current patch is hack, it basically allows us to override
>> delay function so we can de-schedule it,
>> do some other useful work while waiting for delay to finish
>> and then give control back to original function…
>>
>> Maybe we can fix this by providing a delay callback functionality...
>
> Yes it could be an idea.
> Please send a RFC patch.
OK, I will ask one of our guys to work on it...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-16 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-14 13:27 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " damarion
2016-07-14 18:03 ` [dpdk-dev] " Jan Viktorin
2016-07-14 18:10 ` Damjan Marion (damarion)
2016-07-14 22:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-14 22:20 ` Damjan Marion (damarion)
2016-07-15 8:31 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-15 9:54 ` Damjan Marion (damarion)
2016-07-15 10:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-16 11:12 ` Damjan Marion (damarion) [this message]
2016-07-16 11:14 ` Damjan Marion (damarion)
2016-07-15 14:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-15 15:08 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-16 11:14 ` Damjan Marion (damarion)
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=10B988F3-0462-48CD-98A9-4BEE718CD96A@cisco.com \
--to=damarion@cisco.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=viktorin@rehivetech.com \
/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).