From: "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"bruce.richardson@intel.com" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
nd <nd@arm.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/5] spinlock: move the implementation to arm specific file
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:40:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR08MB3160B28EAD78EB070D2023628FBF0@AM6PR08MB3160.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8wEx=sWdG6LHY_06iL6SotTp3x5Cg8FfUr=BUVv3tmEnw@mail.gmail.com>
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:47 PM David Marchand <mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM Gavin Hu <mailto:gavin.hu@arm.com> wrote:
>>> remove the hard code #ifdef RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS, move the implementation
>>> to the arm specific file, x86 and POWER have their own implementations.
>> No, x86 and ppc define their own implementation when _not_ having RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS.
> Actually, I wondered in the past if we realled needed those double implementations...
> Is there really a point in maintaining both ? I am pretty sure people only use the default configuration per architecture.
> David Marchand
X86 implementation is xchg instruction based, it is arch specific.
Ppc has its own code base, but in reality it is same as arm implementation, but in future, arm will change to its own instruction level based implementation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-20 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-20 10:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/5] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/5] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct spinlock benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/5] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/5] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/5] spinlock: move the implementation to arm specific file Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 12:47 ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 12:55 ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 14:40 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) [this message]
2018-12-20 14:36 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-20 15:09 ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 15:58 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-20 15:59 ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 5/5] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 Gavin Hu
2019-01-15 7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements gavin hu
2019-01-15 7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 gavin hu
2019-01-15 7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking gavin hu
2019-01-15 7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time gavin hu
2019-01-15 7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 gavin hu
2019-01-15 17:42 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins gavin hu
2019-03-08 7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/3] test/spinlock: dealy 1 us to create contention Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/3] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-11 12:21 ` Nipun Gupta
2019-03-15 12:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-03-15 12:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-03-28 7:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-28 7:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-08 7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2019-03-08 7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-12 14:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-03-14 0:31 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-03-14 0:31 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-03-14 2:36 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-03-14 2:36 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-03-14 14:22 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-03-14 14:22 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
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=AM6PR08MB3160B28EAD78EB070D2023628FBF0@AM6PR08MB3160.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).