From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29590A0C45; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:10:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A92A410F1; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:10:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACDA410FA for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:10:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BF7106F; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net-x86-dell-8268.shanghai.arm.com (net-x86-dell-8268.shanghai.arm.com [10.169.210.103]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7BDE3F70D; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:10:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com> To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, nd@arm.com, Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>, Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:10:17 +0800 Message-Id: <20211027081018.653746-4-feifei.wang2@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 In-Reply-To: <20211027081018.653746-1-feifei.wang2@arm.com> References: <20210902053253.3017858-1-feifei.wang2@arm.com> <20211027081018.653746-1-feifei.wang2@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/4] eal: use wait event scheme for mcslock X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Instead of polling for mcslock to be updated, use wait event scheme for this case. Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com> --- lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h index 34f33c64a5..806a2b2c7e 100644 --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h @@ -116,8 +116,13 @@ rte_mcslock_unlock(rte_mcslock_t **msl, rte_mcslock_t *me) /* More nodes added to the queue by other CPUs. * Wait until the next pointer is set. */ - while (__atomic_load_n(&me->next, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) == NULL) - rte_pause(); +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_32 + rte_wait_event((uint32_t *)&me->next, UINT32_MAX, ==, 0, + __ATOMIC_RELAXED); +#else + rte_wait_event((uint64_t *)&me->next, UINT64_MAX, ==, 0, + __ATOMIC_RELAXED); +#endif } /* Pass lock to next waiter. */ -- 2.25.1