2015-06-17 14:05, Bruce Richardson: > 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.
Does it mean you ack these patches and they can be blindly applied without double checking? > Thomas, is a V3 needed for this small conflict, or can you handle it on > applying > the patch? Don't worry about conflicts.
