On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 07:58 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000 > "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com> wrote: > > 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads: > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the > way for its inclusion in 19.08. > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com> > > There is still no agreement on this change? > > > Still none. I was hoping this discussion ( > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead to some > clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled. > > The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage.
It is also possible to do "non-blocking" (but not lock-free) rings with the original element size (a pointer per ring slot) as implemented here: https://github.com/ARM-software/progress64/blob/master/src/p64_ringbuf.c Some extra (head&tail) metadata is required but I think there is space for that in the rte_ring structure. > Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking > rings are not necessary for all use cases. I proposed a new library ("rte_lfring") with lock-free rings here: https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124242.html The lock-free design should be the same as in Gage's patch. rte_lfring could of course be part of the rte_ring library. -- Ola Liljedahl, Networking System Architect, Arm Phone +46706866373, Skype ola.liljedahl
