08/08/2024 13:41, Rakesh Kudurumalla: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 9:42 PM > To: Rakesh Kudurumalla <rkuduruma...@marvell.com> > Cc: ferruh.yi...@amd.com; andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru; or...@nvidia.com; > dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram > <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] examples/l2fwd-jobstats: fix lock > availability > > Hello, 30/07/2024 12: 03, Rakesh Kudurumalla: > This patch addresses the > issue by introducing a delay Please start with describing the issue. > before > acquiring the lock in the loop. This delay allows for better > availability > of the > > > Hello, > > > > 30/07/2024 12:03, Rakesh Kudurumalla: > > > This patch addresses the issue by introducing a delay > > > > Please start with describing the issue.
You should explain the race is managed with a spinlock, and where the threads are running (one is a timer). > > before acquiring the lock in the loop. This delay allows for better > > availability of the lock, ensuring that show_lcore_stats() can > > periodically update the statistics even when forwarding jobs are running. > > > Why a delay is better than a pause? > > > due to high frequency of polling in l2fwd_main_loop() rte_pause() is not > yieding the processor > to display stats relating to fwd and flush execution time so added a delay > achieve the same. Which CPU did you try?
