>-----Original Message----- >From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com] >> @@ -1317,16 +1317,19 @@ rte_hash_iterate(const struct rte_hash *h, const >> void **key, void **data, uint32 >> bucket_idx = *next / RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES; >> idx = *next % RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES; >> >> + __hash_rw_reader_lock(h); >This does not work well with the lock-less changes I am making. We should >leave the lock in its original position. Instead change the >while loop as follows: > >while ((position = h->buckets[bucket_idx].key_idx[idx]) == EMPTY_SLOT) > >> /* If current position is empty, go to the next one */ >> while (h->buckets[bucket_idx].key_idx[idx] == EMPTY_SLOT) { >> (*next)++; >> /* End of table */ >> - if (*next == total_entries) >> + if (*next == total_entries) { >> + __hash_rw_reader_unlock(h); >> return -ENOENT; >> + } >> bucket_idx = *next / RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES; >> idx = *next % RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES; >> } >> - __hash_rw_reader_lock(h); >> + >> /* Get position of entry in key table */ >> position = h->buckets[bucket_idx].key_idx[idx]; >If we change the while loop as I suggested as above, we can remove this line. > >> next_key = (struct rte_hash_key *) ((char *)h->key_store +
[Wang, Yipeng] Sorry that I did not realize you already have it in your patch set and I agree. Do you want to export it as a bug fix in your patch set? I will remove my change. For the lock free, do we need to protect it with version counter? Imagine the following corner case: While the iterator read the key and data, there is a writer deleted, removed, and recycled the key-data pair, and write a new key and data into it. While the writer are writing, will the reader reads out wrong key/data, or mismatched key/data?
