Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] add support for HTM lock elision for x86

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:14:49PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-17 14:05, Bruce Richardson:
> > 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. 
> 
> Does it mean you ack these patches and they can be blindly applied
> without double checking?
> 

Series Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>