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 4E272A0C41; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114D2141A93; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C2A4068A for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:43 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618554883; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uovH/MI3OombA3QoN4KaXIp1DJoPwx45z6dzHwMwYQk=; b=dhHwJduJciiGp77mZilN0gtYZ04DzyaxlVY2BtSxpMZpg1cIo070OmF6AABUCxWxuJ9/UH uvJqgP3OCQaX/0thOH1tkjunYPnUYgtwaj3tvcf0VTV9gtkNbUd9ygS+3bXTdtDpR6FpxQ hTQY07LVYhgR07UwmFFf9lWCrw0pKsQ= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-307-B_V1Ix7gMwenPSD3KSPKgg-1; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:34:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: B_V1Ix7gMwenPSD3KSPKgg-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id k186-20020a1fa1c30000b02901deb88f03ecso2212201vke.11 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uovH/MI3OombA3QoN4KaXIp1DJoPwx45z6dzHwMwYQk=; b=XzPz2r96cS7UvHYI6bFZGnCihOmo+waKH5UllIZbbgNxRBbRT4IBNdtNR6Gmx+hh4j CA989+kZGOn9iYneO/+vGku3M3OGfX6jD7J6zhSbqeRGFsiF8E/oEkUdCzb66DSpE10O 5OD9ISxs0ShgxZRDZ0+4y1BCqIWisbiHhYSTvclMcJGD3Wt0DuCYH3imUqsVwzT5N5xp 0wEXvZGE58IaMaDVyPVHt200t8KGeO4Wy13X7g4/VK8Pn08H5LIvT/TAlPCK26N+vjsM CRMO0JsgyE7vHiPMzul8ugr3FLYOPgfO86h1ZsuCmsBeOACyU/FlZBdMVtDYcy8bKCG4 wppQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VtY9pEqhKwJFkElmt7emDCct/GVI/uON0Ib+7/CJmTXSwuckh 8ryFR37DsL6jm4+2KqUDQEulEidr9fGkyyaPymMslRjIv0YrrXQy0Fbxpx529uBK4yppYlhIWDT ng7WqLlmItj2d9GYy9bk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e017:: with SMTP id c23mr111743vsl.10.1618554880830; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwED1nBmZp+Wo9Iqcm9aqGMvPgzTThD7oRaBbxGDjKtg0boipSxTQSuDDwbGBGouUC5ix7tf+Tswok4IFJMH80= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e017:: with SMTP id c23mr111742vsl.10.1618554880643; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:34:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:29 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJFAV8wjBL4yCS06kex8ugQkr+BumHZVsFE4LS8HDDkYXbdHuw@mail.gmail.com> To: Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] add lock-free stack support discovery 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> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> wrote: > > The lock-free stack implementation (RTE_STACK_F_LF) is supported only on a > subset of platforms, namely x86_64 and arm64. Platforms supporting 128b atomics > have to opt-in to a generic or C11 implementations. All other platforms use a > stubbed implementation for push/pop operations which are basically NOPs. > However rte_stack_create() will not fail and application can proceed assuming > it has a working lock-free stack. Did you actually hit this issue or is this only theoretical? I can only think of ppc64 displaying such behavior. -- David Marchand