From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
To: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
jerinj@marvell.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
bruce.richardson@intel.com, chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
nd@arm.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/5] spinlock: move the implementation to arm specific file
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:55:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8wEx=sWdG6LHY_06iL6SotTp3x5Cg8FfUr=BUVv3tmEnw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8yh5VRn38Dnrm=eKm6j_wS_zAJX0kyV5_Z+zCO1NtCj+A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:47 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM Gavin Hu <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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-20 12:55 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 [this message]
2018-12-20 14:40 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
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='CAJFAV8wEx=sWdG6LHY_06iL6SotTp3x5Cg8FfUr=BUVv3tmEnw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--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).