On 13.07.2016 23:36, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> It looks like v4 doesn't need the fat-rwlock change, then? I had been
> planning to review it but I'll skip it in that case. Please let me know
> if you still want me to review it.
It will be great if you'll take a look on first patch of this series. It
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:53:00PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> Hi, Daniele.
> Thanks for review.
>
> On 13.07.2016 04:15, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > This is not a complete review, but I have some preliminary comments.
> >
> > If I understand correctly
Hi, Daniele.
Thanks for review.
On 13.07.2016 04:15, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> This is not a complete review, but I have some preliminary comments.
>
> If I understand correctly 'port_mutex' is converted to rwlock because
> we want the pmd threads in
Thanks for the patch.
This is not a complete review, but I have some preliminary comments.
If I understand correctly 'port_mutex' is converted to rwlock because
we want the pmd threads in dpif_netdev_xps_get_tx_qid() to be able to
grab it concurrently. I think that we can add a pointer from
If CPU number in pmd-cpu-mask is not divisible by the number of queues and
in a few more complex situations there may be unfair distribution of TX
queue-ids between PMD threads.
For example, if we have 2 ports with 4 queues and 6 CPUs in pmd-cpu-mask
such distribution is possible:
