Let's revive these patches. Erik, could you rebase them with experimental tag, please?
Someone for a review? 11/10/2017 22:42, Thomas Monjalon: > This patchset is waiting for review. > > Robert, are you available? > > 19/09/2017 19:02, Erik Gabriel Carrillo: > > In the current implementation of the DPDK timer library, timers can be > > created and set to be handled by a target lcore by adding it to a > > skiplist that corresponds to that lcore. However, if an application > > enables multiple lcores, and each of these lcores repeatedly attempts > > to install timers on the same target lcore, overall application > > throughput will be reduced as all lcores contend to acquire the lock > > guarding the single skiplist of pending timers. > > > > This patchset addresses this scenario by adding an option to enable an > > array of skiplists in each lcore's priv_timer struct. Then, when lcore i > > installs a timer on lcore k, the timer will be added to the ith skiplist > > for lcore k. If lcore j installs a timer on lcore k simultaneously, > > lcores i and j can both proceed since they will be acquiring different > > locks for different lists. This functionality is off by default, and > > can be enabled via a new function. > > > > When lcore k processes its pending timers, if the multiple pending list > > option is enabled, it will traverse skiplists in its array and acquire > > the current skiplist's lock while a run list is broken out; meanwhile, > > all other lists can continue to be modified. Then, all run lists for > > lcore k are collected and traversed together so timers are executed in > > their relative order. If the multiple pending list option is not enabled > > (the default), only a single list will be traversed, as before. > > > > Erik Gabriel Carrillo (3): > > timer: add multiple pending lists option for each lcore > > timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads > > doc: update timer lib docs > > >
