On 2/19/2016 5:05 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 19.02.2016 11:36, Xie, Huawei wrote: >> On 2/19/2016 3:10 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:43AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com> >>>> --- >>>> doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>>> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>>> index 403e5fc..13a6c89 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ then locking, or some other form of mutual exclusion, is >>>> necessary. >>>> The ring library is based on a lockless ring-buffer algorithm that >>>> maintains its original design for thread safety. >>>> Moreover, it provides high performance for either multi- or >>>> single-consumer/producer enqueue/dequeue operations. >>>> The mempool library is based on the DPDK lockless ring library and >>>> therefore is also multi-thread safe. >>>> +rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() is also thread safe because based on lockless >>>> ring-buffer algorithm like the ring library. >>> FYI, Huawei meant to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() not be thread-safe, >>> to aligh with the usage of rte_eth_tx_burst(). >>> >>> --yliu >> I have a patch to remove the lockless enqueue. Unless there is strong >> reason, i prefer vhost PMD to behave like other PMDs, with no internal >> lockless algorithm. In future, for people who really need it, we could >> have dynamic/static switch to enable it.
Thomas, what is your opinion on this and my patch removing lockless enqueue? > OK, got it. So, I think, this documentation patch may be dropped. > Other patches of series still may be merged to fix existing issues and > keep code in consistent state for the future. > Am I right? Yes. > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >
