Hi Stephen, Please see inline.
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 8:56 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; > Konstantin Ananyev <[email protected]>; Bernard > Iremonger <[email protected]>; Volodymyr Fialko > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; > Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]>; Kiran Kumar > Kokkilagadda <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Olivier Matz > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 21/22] pdcp: add thread safe processing > > On Thu, 25 May 2023 08:15:07 +0000 > Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Anoob] With PDCP (& most other protocols), we have to update the states > atomically. Application designers would have a choice of either use single > thread or do multi-thread processing. If the library is designed for multi- > thread and if application uses only single thread, then there would be > unnecessary overheads from library. If library sticks to single-thread and if > application needs more threads for scaling, then again it would become a > library issue. > > > > Is your issue with providing such an option or is it about how it is > implemented? IPsec also has a similar challenge and similar per SA > configuration is provided in lib IPsec as well. > > If you want to provide unlocked access, then it should be done with another > set of API's. > > The cost of conditional branch will be higher than atomic some times. [Anoob] Understood. I'll try to introduce some const flags so that compiler optimized threads can be registered. That way the conditional branch could be avoided.
