On Thu, 2018-12-27 at 15:41 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:08:26 +0000 > Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > NAK to adding new API for this. > > I want the best possible locks for all applications and all > architectures. > These should be called spinlock so there is no requirement for > application > to change to get better performance. Why not just implement the best > algorithm > across the board. Yes, this means collaboration or working on the > other guys > architecture.
Then 6/6 patch needs to put on hold if every arch needs to make ticket lock as default spinlock lock strategy. How about following to make forward progress: 1) Introduce rte_ticketlock_[lock/unlock/trylock/is_locked] API now as experimental with default implementation 2) Provide a time line to switch every arch for optimized ticketlock implementation if needed. 3) Switch rte_ticketlock_ as rte_spinlock_ API. 4) Keep old version of spinlock as new API if some application does not need fairness between threads at the cost of light weight spinlock implementation. I don't want arm64 to behave differently than other arch(s).
