From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7DDA04C0; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:30:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB41E97F; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F441E977 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:30:51 +0200 (CEST) Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601044250; 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=9Y5eMBzQXEJgmow2ougHJExMo1Cl/kTyvgfuSLjpxiI=; b=g7/PSOTB4hchLvoqg/gxwcYxIqFg4oIKalGbqBHqBtKj6iBeQcJ8q5+fKtnL8W6nO3Zk32 wxyVdydfP6W5+ui9RKil8/nS6iBFKi8bLCYYUg2Dbbd72icOLEemWU08R2cCultBkBETSY qRyzjBolaeOKWEgtmP9M5WK1uzL72qg= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-327-Lyo5V_8cMn2G2nkc0A0b0w-1; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:30:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Lyo5V_8cMn2G2nkc0A0b0w-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id p65so747008uap.22 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:30:46 -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=9Y5eMBzQXEJgmow2ougHJExMo1Cl/kTyvgfuSLjpxiI=; b=PSMfwTqMFLphFG5fuaWCkH0cbqyoSntPMtZeiM7YsZlrZjqnucn+j7i2C9fXbKArik SV34Cd9ew9Ityu0JQgOcnGmLhgxMiMtDwDVomVfx8jG5/Tfk9qZRQ/lbL9JpAeNZMESY cEnbjFnfM/o53o/MmTC1BRoB08SpReBK9DyNf9rwpcg6Fjej75B7MUxqvZLdGRz7CxKX e1oovENEzBGmnUOjhEaAdGgn1MWwH3TajjRY+VDYd2Vl64tNV/roI4BhjTcVm1rpvW+v /dtu1gwoJKOE3472Ttv7W6wRccMNjKVz5/y6ROvp8KxBNCzo2QaW7WAYBwt+UJdqYll3 FUJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qRGlOeF4Mab/wuUdtbvxEWk+7QOPjShEvcfMMV6/IcUDsMDUA ThQSKjeKqgTxoB7V49J3oEHlh0ikCTNsfEj3ixRNFgrHW9cQzOoJeVwWf3VXoGsCdzJGB+DGHoR eMeHDyfMw69KG7phbR2M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3029:: with SMTP id v9mr3332827vsa.5.1601044245991; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPghRQRBS8fUbgrUNgp3sDm3mWgBafSdq4nKgKdrXEt+ISAxCHZ4nakkQIF9kKjZi4T9aJli1ttZij009Fepg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3029:: with SMTP id v9mr3332805vsa.5.1601044245788; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200424070741.16619-1-gavin.hu@arm.com> <20200426083909.897-1-gavin.hu@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: dev , nd , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , Ruifeng Wang , Phil Yang , Joyce Kong , "Ananyev, Konstantin" 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 v2 0/2] Use WFE for spinlock and ring X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hello Honnappa, On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:32 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Use WFE for spinlock and ring > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gavin Hu wrote: > > > > > > The rte_wait_until_equal_xxx APIs abstract the functionality of > > > 'polling for a memory location to become equal to a given value'[1]. > > > > > > Use the API for the rte spinlock and ring implementations. > > > > > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/cover/62703/ > > > > > > Gavin Hu (2): > > > spinlock: use wfe to reduce contention on aarch64 > > > ring: use wfe to wait for ring tail update on aarch64 > > > > This would result in rte_ring and rte_spinlock APIs becoming experimental > > and this breaks compilation for external applications using stable ring and > > spinlock APIs. > > IIRC, it was the reason why these patches were dropped with the introduction > > of the rte_wait_until_equal_* API. > Agreed, the rte_ring new sync modes are resulting in different use cases for these APIs. We need to take a relook at the APIs. Will we reconsider this series now that the wait until equal is going stable? -- David Marchand