From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF951A0546; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 02:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B308410D7; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 02:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f41.google.com (mail-pj1-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C9A40395 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 02:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f41.google.com with SMTP id h14-20020a17090aea8eb02901553e1cc649so840652pjz.0 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:53:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lw4NrghLIlgArZrluUYAvU6AaHePAxKBLvliFbgzflI=; b=pl1xeuZjbsEfYT3C+HuI3UQsvNRg2+nSS1Sxyl6AQEaRg3mDodR0AE7ThfPwdfKPEA 2EVCLm+sVelGnmUmNI0hgUj/dJJdbPywXtlUIQIQ856Q/W4QowoapqTrCElsDB0yDRd0 caWpFTyz26sPhRF3Foyrsud6nxcGm4QTGUiq4PrOE4HI9Zs3WVKC8Qau79yTEmomX1oO NijS8wDSbAAtdkugqgh2duvjxUvbHYyq3lM2F02HlzQEXGEPa2XJF3cPEa/vQwiHEE7X zWijklOciGzYQC/hOn0PejjAqb4DrgB267rAcMD+FF46i2y4q0Srd900bIVl3LCmAfn5 DoUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lw4NrghLIlgArZrluUYAvU6AaHePAxKBLvliFbgzflI=; b=JV4R94mGjpkEDSxNZ6lEyUaze++Qang2IgksC76E+1MLcCNFsOsqdJSaNYGgXUPDuk 2XvPtsBMc7HLVrIw8p8hljtU0b1RemeguVnePf7iN+WR/lJwmR7vQLFzlG0/ZXDwjCAX fSPKI5Um/nUOOoPax1BJD+WVY7+PfSqQSZ9pJcQkFP6wWkBqXqmu9824jwTrQVo5G1uQ GxfjqbVhQhLPgX+ogV3M9edqx0Rv+aIvDwpCxM8zkTxT5afnSYS03k5uLU3wQaoXbO8Z GfgbXDyn5Mn1ZyDc8JbJEaYAXG/c+Sp5xeWeTB2Yn+fiFknP4Sw9x5vLzxvFytymvsZo LF/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cMrIIuHLkwV/T7bubfT7TPib94eEM4ZKaFz21ygPskvRbMi1h pBpuuq/yEvWGCYCvnbJx9BEhOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+K+5L3RgTvmDXuzjndeX+HoxnNCtusW8Wba018CAAKh6ADp74BsdWZcHu3l32TfwYyww89A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7c8a:b029:e6:f010:a4f4 with SMTP id y10-20020a1709027c8ab02900e6f010a4f4mr2605822pll.17.1619744013976; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (76-14-218-44.or.wavecable.com. [76.14.218.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i10sm211300pfo.37.2021.04.29.17.53.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:53:30 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: Tyler Retzlaff , Joyce Kong , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , Ruifeng Wang , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd Message-ID: <20210429175330.6d39228d@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20210421071733.17794-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <20210429190358.GG21799@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20210429193854.GH21799@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] test/ticketlock: use C11 atomic builtins for lcores sync X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:10:04 +0000 Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] test/ticketlock: use C11 atomic > > > > builtins for lcores sync > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:17:33AM -0500, Joyce Kong wrote: > > > > > Convert rte_atomic usages to C11 atomic builtins for lcores sync > > > > > in ticketlock testcases. > > > > > > > > gcc atomic builtins aren't 'C11' > > > Sorry, I did not understand this, can you elaborate? I am referring to [1]. > > > > your subject line indicates the use of C11 which is a standard [1]. > > > > the patch itself uses gcc atomics builtins which are not part of C11 standard so > > the subject line is incorrect and misleading. > Ok, understood. How about the following? > "use gcc's C11 atomic built-ins for lcore synchronization" > > > > > [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards.html#9899 > > > > > > > > Not sure if these compilers are supported in DPDK. DPDK officially supports > > gcc, clang (not sure on icc). > > > > dpdk may incorporate support for other compilers in the future so unless there is > > substantive justification for moving to non-standard/non-portable code i'm > > asking that this change not be made as it will complicate those future efforts. > There is some history [1] behind why we are doing this. I guess new compiler support needs to be discussed in the future. > > [1] https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model/ Footnote: C++ 11 standard memory model (see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order) which is made available as builtin extensions in clang and gcc.