From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB75BA0524 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B674135C; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFB04130F for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id o9-20020a1c41090000b029012c8dac9d47so11349710wma.1 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:44:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6uPhR8lbey9BehqP09sGU2smtCCRB33Pma48ADNBypc=; b=eamuMofY2/nRMrq19BZIQ7WkUuehLH4Ifp8xzfm/VHhwMLJ7CnRejVbVoQBRBAhG/f LfBp9LvsRDyA4AGWszNNDBbODU0645vokMA9CCrq9GJEkvVYEZQUKjzAshrrTe9f1N4B mEPoMbXuCprDpwo/xUAS6pKYNPmFkJk0253+eBkjsJhBaR7UypIRRB1NAoSJmi8ANslw KM+ptUC3fsOrafjRGkFw+06/s+r7aD4eS1c0xACQLTKKwC/iJy4MzrpFhtB5iu02mzJZ 539dMmRnEOImhgJZ6R7EoYKoPSOZyHNrpbYlgIfffqdesRXiOfyejGGByDLB1jMJ5MSC f8oQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6uPhR8lbey9BehqP09sGU2smtCCRB33Pma48ADNBypc=; b=MJrwHzv032uewlkkwwu/W1FIKDNDOrH8gH2XCRkyz3rbcbudEJXeUr81jqRHQkacC4 UdwdsN0bsh91Aja1tMA/XLWIV4SD/gLrdHdCVyB+0QOfjJUK4f23x7Gq650Jjs594FuZ xhGcOathKl4uaPkr8Smf2UIGWyRYJNRSu2KZ9dIPYWEIOpa6G3o4k2vZ7tZ5WO1oK+Yq kxQI4lJSozx8ok0T68BSV+dc5B6ROJ8XQRwLHwSP2ANzhRD0UKml4Hbv6UQQq62oNiTF n76+FyRExM3JS7QTNRkf4cPbQ98qvLlpJ5TLTxaZTtwUjHzB4qUUn0KwiUtR4AcLISBX /QZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531K9qg9uAfK+sGga1VGd5mwzEGR4qcztWsxvbIUi8IMJyB+hDyf ACu06PFU4CYDK4pykB8jha6aog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQNUaxoFvvWLwGnl04cgr9L16B8IuA34Ec4dylND4ZiZVbMWLt0ZqESlQAn51Phm2RXjgSlA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:350b:: with SMTP id h11mr11177254wmq.103.1618843476242; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toster (89-73-146-138.dynamic.chello.pl. [89.73.146.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r2sm23013255wrt.79.2021.04.19.07.44.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:34 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Stanis=C5=82aw?= Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org> Message-ID: <CALVGJWKC2cbT4n1kX5Wyy8WPWidVDUx7-gge6MApgQL9--ZCRw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> <CAJFAV8wjBL4yCS06kex8ugQkr+BumHZVsFE4LS8HDDkYXbdHuw@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8wjBL4yCS06kex8ugQkr+BumHZVsFE4LS8HDDkYXbdHuw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] add lock-free stack support discovery X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/> List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:34:29AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > 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. > I actually hit this issue while working on a RISC-V port. My reasoning here is that sooner or later someone else will stumble upon this, either on ppc64 or while trying to port to some new platform. It is also a really nasty limitation do debug given the silent nature of the failure. > > -- > David Marchand > -- Best Regards, Stanislaw Kardach