On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 11:05 AM Artemy Kovalyov wrote:
>
> > > + /* memory_hotplug_lock is taken in rte_eal_init(), so it's
> > > +* safe to call thread-unsafe version.
> > > +*/
> >
> > Nit: the lock is really taken in rte_eal_memory_init().
> > Probably "The l
> > + /* memory_hotplug_lock is taken in rte_eal_init(), so it's
> > +* safe to call thread-unsafe version.
> > +*/
>
> Nit: the lock is really taken in rte_eal_memory_init().
> Probably "The lock is held during initialization, so..."
> would more robust against
2023-09-04 11:24 (UTC+0300), Artemy Kovalyov:
> diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
> b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
> index bdbbe233a0..0d5da40096 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
> +++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,10 @@ eal_dynmem_hugep
The issue arose due to the change in the DPDK read-write lock
implementation. That change added a new flag, RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT, designed
to prevent new read locks while a write lock is in the queue. However,
this change has led to a scenario where a recursive read lock, where a
lock is acquired twice
4 matches
Mail list logo