.@solarflare.com; Richardson, Bruce
> > ; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > ; step...@networkplumber.org; nd
> > ; tho...@monjalon.net; Ola Liljedahl
> > ; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> > ; Song Zhu (Arm Technology China)
> > ; nd
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v
org; nd
> ; tho...@monjalon.net; Ola Liljedahl
> ; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> ; Song Zhu (Arm Technology China)
> ; nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] Add non-blocking ring
>
> Hi Honnappa,
>
> Works for me -- I'm in favor of the best performing im
> ; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> ; Song Zhu (Arm Technology China)
> ; nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] Add non-blocking ring
>
> Hi Gage,
> Thank you for this patch. Arm (Ola Liljedahl) had worked on a non-
> blocking ring algorithm. We were plannin
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 9:23 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com;
> bruce.richard...@intel.com; konstantin.anan...@intel.com;
> step...@networkplumber.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] Add non-blocking ring
>
> For s
On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:02 +, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 09:27 +, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 09:23 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > >
> > > v3:
> > > - Avoid the ABI break by putting 64-bit head and tail values in
> > > the
> > > same
> >
On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 09:27 +, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 09:23 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > v3:
> > - Avoid the ABI break by putting 64-bit head and tail values in
> > the
> > same
> >cacheline as struct rte_ring's prod and cons members.
> > - Don't attempt to compile rt
Konstantin
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] Add non-blocking ring
>
> On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 09:23 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > For some users, the rte ring's "non-preemptive" constraint is not
> > acceptable; for example, if the application uses a mixture
Sorry about the confidental footer. I tried to remove it using some Exhange
magic but it seems not to work with Evolution. I'll try some other way.
-- Ola
On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 09:27 +, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 09:23 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> >
> > For some users, the rte
On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 09:23 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> For some users, the rte ring's "non-preemptive" constraint is not
> acceptable;
> for example, if the application uses a mixture of pinned high-
> priority threads
> and multiplexed low-priority threads that share a mempool.
>
> This patchset in
For some users, the rte ring's "non-preemptive" constraint is not acceptable;
for example, if the application uses a mixture of pinned high-priority threads
and multiplexed low-priority threads that share a mempool.
This patchset introduces a non-blocking ring, on top of which a mempool can run.
C
10 matches
Mail list logo
