On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:16:43AM -0700, Roman Dementiev wrote: > This series of patches adds methods that use hardware memory transactions > (HTM) > on fast-path for DPDK locks (a.k.a. lock elision). Here the methods are > implemented for x86 using Restricted Transactional Memory instructions > (Intel(r) > Transactional Synchronization Extensions). The implementation fall-backs to > the normal DPDK lock if HTM is not available or memory transactions fail. This > is not a replacement for ALL lock usages since not all critical sections > protected by locks are friendly to HTM. For example, an attempt to perform > a HW I/O operation inside a hardware memory transaction always aborts > the transaction since the CPU is not able to roll-back should the transaction > fail. Therefore, hardware transactional locks are not advised to be used > around > rte_eth_rx_burst() and rte_eth_tx_burst() calls. > > v2 changes > -added a documentation note about hardware limitations > > Roman Dementiev (3): > spinlock: add support for HTM lock elision for x86 > rwlock: add support for HTM lock elision for x86 > test scaling of HTM lock elision protecting rte_hash > A change with a conflict in the test makefile was merged last night. However, the patches themselves otherwise seem ok.
Thomas, is a V3 needed for this small conflict, or can you handle it on applying the patch?
