> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:50 PM
> To: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; n...@arm.com; Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx
> iteration
>
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > ---
> > lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c | 9 +++------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c
> > index 6e8248f0d6..3af15ae97b 100644
> > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c
> > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c
> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ bpf_eth_cbi_unuse(struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> > static void
> > bpf_eth_cbi_wait(const struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> > {
> > - uint32_t nuse, puse;
> > + uint32_t puse;
> >
> > /* make sure all previous loads and stores are completed */
> > rte_smp_mb();
> > @@ -122,11 +122,8 @@ bpf_eth_cbi_wait(const struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> >
> > /* in use, busy wait till current RX/TX iteration is finished */
> > if ((puse & BPF_ETH_CBI_INUSE) != 0) {
> > - do {
> > - rte_pause();
> > - rte_compiler_barrier();
> > - nuse = cbi->use;
> > - } while (nuse == puse);
> > + rte_compiler_barrier();
> > + rte_wait_event_32(&cbi->use, UINT_MAX, puse, ==,
> > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
Probably UINT32_MAX will be a bit better here.
>
> If we do use atomic load, while we still need a compiler_barrier() here?
>
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
