On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> wrote: > > Instead of polling for read pflock update, use wait event scheme for > this case. > > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > --- > lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h > b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h > index e57c179ef2..7573b036bf 100644 > --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h > +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pflock.h > @@ -121,9 +121,7 @@ rte_pflock_read_lock(rte_pflock_t *pf) > return; > > /* Wait for current write phase to complete. */ > - while ((__atomic_load_n(&pf->rd.in, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE) > - & RTE_PFLOCK_WBITS) == w) > - rte_pause(); > + rte_wait_event(&pf->rd.in, RTE_PFLOCK_WBITS, ==, w, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE); > } > > /** > -- > 2.25.1 >
