This is a new type of reader-writer lock that provides better fairness
guarantees which makes it better for typical DPDK applications.
They lock internally uses two ticket pools, one for readers and one
for writers.
Phase fair reader writer locks ensure that neither reader or writer will be
starve
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:19:45 -0800
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This is a new type of reader-writer lock that provides better fairness
> guarantees which makes it better for typical DPDK applications.
> They lock internally uses two ticket pools, one for readers and one
> for writers.
>
> Phase fa
> Subject: [PATCH v3] pflock: implementation of phase-fair reader writer locks
>
> This is a new type of reader-writer lock that provides better fairness
> guarantees which makes it better for typical DPDK applications.
> They lock internally uses two ticket pools, one for readers and one for
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 03:14:29 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
>
> > Subject: [PATCH v3] pflock: implementation of phase-fair reader writer locks
> >
> > This is a new type of reader-writer lock that provides better fairness
> > guarantees which makes it better for typical DPDK applications.
> >
> > > Subject: [PATCH v3] pflock: implementation of phase-fair reader
> > > writer locks
> > >
> > > This is a new type of reader-writer lock that provides better
> > > fairness guarantees which makes it better for typical DPDK applications.
> > > They lock internally uses two ticket pools, o
Meta question: is implementing trylock worth it?
The original did not have it.
There are tradeoffs about number of readers and added complexity
in the code?
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h
> > new file mode 100644
> >
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pflock: implementation of phase-fair reader writer
> locks
>
> Meta question: is implementing trylock worth it?
> The original did not have it.
If there is no use for it currently, I suggest not to add. If someone sees a
need, they can always add. I am ok if you add a
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:18:40 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > That won't work because the implementation of trylock requires
> > compare/exchange of the whole structure as an atomic operation.
> I meant, placing 'rd' and 'wr' on separate cache lines. It might help in the
> reader-writer c
8 matches
Mail list logo
