From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E41D5A5E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:06:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2015 06:05:54 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,632,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="748333899"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.21])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 2015 06:05:53 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:05:51 +0025
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:05:51 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Roman Dementiev <roman.dementiev@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20150617130551.GA8208@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1433250693-23644-1-git-send-email-roman.dementiev@intel.com>
 <1434475006-13732-1-git-send-email-roman.dementiev@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1434475006-13732-1-git-send-email-roman.dementiev@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] add support for HTM lock elision for
 x86
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:06:44 -0000

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:16:43AM -0700, Roman Dementiev wrote:
> This series of patches adds methods that use hardware memory transactions (HTM)
> on fast-path for DPDK locks (a.k.a. lock elision). Here the methods are
> implemented for x86 using Restricted Transactional Memory instructions (Intel(r)
> Transactional Synchronization Extensions). The implementation fall-backs to
> the normal DPDK lock if HTM is not available or memory transactions fail. This
> is not a replacement for ALL lock usages since not all critical sections
> protected by locks are friendly to HTM. For example, an attempt to perform
> a HW I/O operation inside a hardware memory transaction always aborts
> the transaction since the CPU is not able to roll-back should the transaction
> fail. Therefore, hardware transactional locks are not advised to be used around
> rte_eth_rx_burst() and rte_eth_tx_burst() calls.
> 
> v2 changes
> -added a documentation note about hardware limitations
> 
> Roman Dementiev (3):
>   spinlock: add support for HTM lock elision for x86
>   rwlock: add support for HTM lock elision for x86
>   test scaling of HTM lock elision protecting rte_hash
> 
A change with a conflict in the test makefile was merged last night. However,
the patches themselves otherwise seem ok. 

Thomas, is a V3 needed for this small conflict, or can you handle it on applying
the patch?