On 7/20/21 6:51 AM, Joyce Kong wrote:
Covert rte_atomic usages to compiler atomic built-ins in
rcu_perf testcases.
Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
---
app/test/test_rcu_qsbr_perf.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr_perf.c b/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr_perf.c
index 3017e71120..cf7b158d22 100644
--- a/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr_perf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr_perf.c
@@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ static volatile uint32_t thr_id;
static struct rte_rcu_qsbr *t[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
static struct rte_hash *h;
static char hash_name[8];
-static rte_atomic64_t updates, checks;
-static rte_atomic64_t update_cycles, check_cycles;
+static uint64_t updates, checks;
+static uint64_t update_cycles, check_cycles;
/* Scale down results to 1000 operations to support lower
* granularity clocks.
@@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ test_rcu_qsbr_reader_perf(void *arg)
}
cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
- rte_atomic64_add(&update_cycles, cycles);
- rte_atomic64_add(&updates, loop_cnt);
+ __atomic_fetch_add(&update_cycles, cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
+ __atomic_fetch_add(&updates, loop_cnt, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
Shouldn't __atomic_add_fetch() be used instead since it pseudo-code is
a bit simpler. What is the best option if return value is not actually
used?
