On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:27 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> wrote: > > Instead of polling for mcslock to be updated, use wait event scheme > for this case. > > Furthermore, use 'uintptr_t *' is for different size of pointer in 32/64 > bits architecture. > > And define a new pointer 'next' for the compilation error: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 'dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules' > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > --- > lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h > b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h > index 34f33c64a5..d5b9b293cd 100644 > --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h > +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h > @@ -116,8 +116,9 @@ rte_mcslock_unlock(rte_mcslock_t **msl, rte_mcslock_t *me) > /* More nodes added to the queue by other CPUs. > * Wait until the next pointer is set. > */ > - while (__atomic_load_n(&me->next, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) == NULL) > - rte_pause(); > + uintptr_t *next = NULL;
It is going to update in the next line. Why explicit NULL assignment? > + next = (uintptr_t *)&me->next; > + rte_wait_event(next, UINTPTR_MAX, ==, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); > } > > /* Pass lock to next waiter. */ > -- > 2.25.1 >
