On 2021-08-25 17:31, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
On 2021-08-24 23:30, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
One difference between this implementation and the previous one is
this busy loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make t
> >
> >>
> >> On 2021-08-24 23:30, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
> >>> Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> >>>
> > One difference between this implementation and the previous one is
> > this busy loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
> Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
> > > One difference between this implementation and the previous one is
> > > this busy loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the
> > > calling thread to sleep and wait for the sync event. So here we can
> >
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:23:08 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On 2021-08-02 07:16, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > > The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is rigid
> > > which makes the implementation of the function complex.
> > > The behavior is abstracted
>
> On 2021-08-24 23:30, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
> > Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> >
> >>> One difference between this implementation and the previous one is
> >>> this busy loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the
> >>> calling thread to
>
> On 2021-08-02 07:16, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is rigid
> > which makes the implementation of the function complex.
> > The behavior is abstracted to allow for simplified implementation.
> >
>
> Have you considered using a POSI
On 2021-08-24 23:30, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
One difference between this implementation and the previous one is this busy
loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the calling thread to sleep
and wait for the sync event
On 2021-08-02 07:16, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is
rigid which makes the implementation of the function complex.
The behavior is abstracted to allow for simplified implementation.
Have you considered using a POSIX condition variable in
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
> Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
> > > One difference between this implementation and the previous one is
> > > this busy loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the
> > > calling thread to sleep and wait for the sync event. So here we can
> >
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:03:03 +
Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > One difference between this implementation and the previous one is this busy
> > loop. rte_pause() relaxes the cpu, but will not make the calling thread to
> > sleep
> > and wait for the sync event. So here we can spin a quite lo
>
> Hi Honnappa,
>
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 12:16:52AM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is rigid
> > which makes the implementation of the function complex.
> > The behavior is abstracted to allow for simplified implementation.
>
Hi Honnappa,
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 12:16:52AM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is
> rigid which makes the implementation of the function complex.
> The behavior is abstracted to allow for simplified implementation.
I agree that the b
The current described behaviour of rte_ctrl_thread_create is
rigid which makes the implementation of the function complex.
The behavior is abstracted to allow for simplified implementation.
Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
---
v2: Used compiler's C++11 atomic built-ins to access the shared var
13 matches
Mail list logo
