DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, gavin.hu@arm.com,
	dharmik.thakkar@arm.com, nd@arm.com, yipeng1.wang@intel.com,
	sameh.gobriel@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] hash: deprecate lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:25:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181102112507.GE26868@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181101232522.702-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 06:25:18PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> Various configuration flags in rte_hash library result in increase of
> number of test cases. Configuration flags for enabling transactional
> memory use and read/write concurrency are not required. These features
> should be supported by default. Please refer to [1] for more context.
> 
> This patch marks these flags for deprecation in 19.02 release and cleans
> up the test cases.
> 
> [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-October/117268.html
> 
> Honnappa Nagarahalli (4): hash: prepare for deprecation of flags hash:
> deprecate lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags test/hash: stop
> using lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags doc/hash: deprecate
> lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags
> 
While I'd like to reduce the flags and do cleanup, I'm a little concerned
about putting this scope of changes in so late in the release. I wonder if
less drastic changes could work as well for this release, and do the
cleanup later.
For example, rather than deprecating the flags now, how about just change
the default for when no flags are set? If user has set flags, follow the
existing path - if flags is set to zero, then have the defaults be to use
RW concurrency or TSX.

/Bruce

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-11-02 11:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-10 21:48 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/3] Improvements over rte hash and tests Yipeng Wang
2018-10-10 21:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] hash: fix unnecessary pause Yipeng Wang
2018-10-10 21:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/3] test/hash: change multiwriter test to use jhash Yipeng Wang
2018-10-11 11:27   ` Bruce Richardson
2018-10-10 21:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] test/hash: add readwrite test for ext table Yipeng Wang
2018-10-24 20:36   ` Bruce Richardson
2018-10-25  1:06     ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-26  0:23     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26 10:12       ` Bruce Richardson
2018-10-29  5:54         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-31  4:21         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01  4:54   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] hash: deprecate lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01  4:54     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01  9:45       ` Bruce Richardson
2018-11-01  9:48         ` Bruce Richardson
2018-11-01 19:43         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-02 11:11           ` Bruce Richardson
2018-11-01 23:25       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01 23:25         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] hash: prepare for deprecation of flags Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-02 11:14           ` Bruce Richardson
2018-11-01 23:25         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] hash: deprecate lock ellision and read/write concurreny flags Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01 23:25         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] test/hash: stop using " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01 23:25         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] doc/hash: deprecate " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-02 11:21           ` Bruce Richardson
2018-11-02 11:25         ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2018-11-02 17:38           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] hash: " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-12-20 20:10             ` Yigit, Ferruh
2018-11-01  4:54     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] test/hash: stop using " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-01  4:54     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] doc/hash: deprecate " Honnappa Nagarahalli

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=20181102112507.GE26868@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
    --cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
    --cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
    --cc=sameh.gobriel@intel.com \
    --cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.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).