On Thu, 2018-12-27 at 10:05 +0000, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 2:58 PM > > To: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <gavin...@arm.com>; > > dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: david.march...@redhat.com; chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd > > <n...@arm.com>; bruce.richard...@intel.com; tho...@monjalon.net; > > Joyce > > Kong (Arm Technology China) <joyce.k...@arm.com>; > > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; step...@networkplumber.org; Honnappa > > Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > > Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH v3 6/6] spinlock: ticket based to improve > > fairness > > > > On Thu, 2018-12-27 at 12:13 +0800, Gavin Hu wrote: > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > --- > > > From: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com> > > > > > > The old implementation is unfair, some threads may take locks > > > aggressively > > > > I think, one issue here is x86 and ppc follows traditional spinlock > > and > > arm64 will be following ticket lock for spinlock implementation. > > This would change application behaviour on arm64 compared to x86 > > and > > ppc. > > > > How about having a separate API for ticket lock? That would give, > > # application choice to use the locking strategy > > # application behaviour will be same across all arch. > > Ok, will do in v4 to have a new named rte_ticket_spinlock API.
I would prefer rte_ticketlock_[lock/unlock/trylock/is_locked] name instead of rte_ticket_spinlock_lock etc to reduce the length of the API.
