an.boule at 6wind.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:07 PM
>>>> To: Richardson, Bruce; Ananyev, Konstantin
>>>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
&
I agree this patch do not bring a new issue.
But the current status deserves to be discussed.
2016-06-15 09:54, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> It is safe to add/remove RX/TX callbacks while
> another thread is doing simultaneously RX/TX burst over same queue.
You are probably right, but I don't why it
Thomas Monjalon; Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
> > callback lists
> >
> > On 06/15/2016 03:29 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:40:16PM +, Ananyev, K
an Boule [mailto:ivan.boule at 6wind.com]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:15 PM
> >>>To: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin
> >>>Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use l
Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
> > callback lists
> >
> > On 06/15/2016 10:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>> I think the read access would
> -Original Message-
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:22 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: Ivan Boule; Thomas Monjalon; Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
> callb
ailto:ivan.boule at 6wind.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:15 PM
> >>> To: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin
> >>> Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
>
On 06/15/2016 10:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>
>>> I think the read access would need locking but we do not want it
>>> in fast path.
>>
>> I don't think it would be needed.
>> As I said - read/write interaction didn't change from what we have right now.
>> But if you have some particular
2016-06-15 09:54, Ananyev, Konstantin:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:49 AM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subjec
Hi Ivan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Boule [mailto:ivan.boule at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use lock
2016-06-15 08:37, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2016-06-15 05:30, Pattan, Reshma:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > 2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan:
> > > > > Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of
2016-06-15 05:30, Pattan, Reshma:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan:
> > > Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of Rx and Tx callbacks to
> > > avoid corruption of callback lists in multithreaded context.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by:
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:49 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: Pattan, Reshma; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
Hi Thomas,
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:19 AM
> To: Pattan, Reshma
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:00 PM
> To: Pattan, Reshma
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx
> callback lists
>
&g
2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan:
> Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of Rx and Tx callbacks
> to avoid corruption of callback lists in multithreaded context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan
Why cb->next is not locked in burst functions?
Just protecting add/remove but not its usage seems
Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of Rx and Tx callbacks
to avoid corruption of callback lists in multithreaded context.
Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan
---
lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 82 +--
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff
17 matches
Mail list logo
