From: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC ][PATCH] Introduce RTE_ARCH_STRONGLY_ORDERED_MEM_OPS configuration parameter
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:24:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0359679D6@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151103161834.GA18450@localhost.localdomain>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob
> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 4:19 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC ][PATCH] Introduce
> RTE_ARCH_STRONGLY_ORDERED_MEM_OPS configuration parameter
>
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:57:24PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jerin Jacob
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:52 PM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC ][PATCH] Introduce
> > > RTE_ARCH_STRONGLY_ORDERED_MEM_OPS configuration parameter
> > >
> > > rte_ring implementation needs explicit memory barrier in weakly
> > > ordered architecture like ARM unlike strongly ordered architecture
> > > like X86
> > >
> > > Introducing RTE_ARCH_STRONGLY_ORDERED_MEM_OPS configuration to
> > > abstract such dependency so that other weakly ordered architectures
> > > can reuse this infrastructure.
> >
> > Looks a bit clumsy.
> > Please try to follow this suggestion instead:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/025505.html
>
> Make sense. Do we agree on a macro that is defined based upon
> RTE_ARCH_STRONGLY_ORDERED_MEM_OP to remove clumsy #ifdef every where ?
>
> Jerin
Yes to the single-defined barrier macro.
However, for what controls it, is it really worthwhile defining a new RTE_ variable for it? Can we not base it on RTE_ARCH directly?
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-03 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-03 15:52 Jerin Jacob
2015-11-03 15:57 ` simon barber
2015-11-03 15:57 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-11-03 16:18 ` Jerin Jacob
2015-11-03 16:24 ` Richardson, Bruce [this message]
2015-11-03 16:28 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-11-03 16:53 ` Jerin Jacob
2015-11-03 17:02 ` Richardson, Bruce
2015-11-03 17:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-11-04 3:33 ` Jerin Jacob
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=59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0359679D6@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@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).