From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, ruifeng.wang@arm.com,
Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com,
dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com,
David Christensen <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] atomic operations
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 13:29:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1879045.6WiRxTbeAL@thomas> (raw)
In the deprecation notices of DPDK 21.05, we can still read this:
"
* rte_atomicNN_xxx: These APIs do not take memory order parameter. This does
not allow for writing optimized code for all the CPU architectures supported
in DPDK. DPDK will adopt C11 atomic operations semantics and provide wrappers
using C11 atomic built-ins. These wrappers must be used for patches that
need to be merged in 20.08 onwards. This change will not introduce any
performance degradation.
* rte_smp_*mb: These APIs provide full barrier functionality. However, many
use cases do not require full barriers. To support such use cases, DPDK will
adopt C11 barrier semantics and provide wrappers using C11 atomic built-ins.
These wrappers must be used for patches that need to be merged in 20.08
onwards. This change will not introduce any performance degradation.
"
Should we keep these notifications forever?
It is very difficult to find which wrapper to use.
This is the guide we have:
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/writing_efficient_code.html#locks-and-atomic-operations
There are 2 blog posts:
https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model/
https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/06/09/reader-writer-concurrency/
Basically it says we should use "__atomic builtins" but there is example
for simple situations like counters, memory barriers, etc.
Please who could work on improving the documentation?
next reply other threads:[~2021-07-03 11:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-03 11:29 Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-07-03 17:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-07-04 0:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-04 0:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-05 7:00 ` Ruifeng Wang
2021-07-05 7:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-05 8:33 ` Ruifeng Wang
2021-07-05 16:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-07-07 19:04 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-07-07 19:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=1879045.6WiRxTbeAL@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=phil.yang@arm.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.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).