On 2018-11-05 22:51, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
I've also run an out-of-tree DSW throughput benchmark, and I've found that
going from Non-C11 to C11 gives a 4% slowdown. After this patch, the
slowdown is only 2,8%.
This is interesting. The general understanding seems to be that C11 atomics
sho
> >
> > 27/10/2018 17:00, Jerin Jacob:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > > The thread is totally messed up because:
> > > > - there is no cover letter
> > > > - some different series (testpmd, i40e and doc) are in the
> > > > same
> > thread
> > > > - v4 replies to a differ
ao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
> bruce.richard...@intel.com; konstantin.anan...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
> 27/10/2018 17:00, Jerin Jacob:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > 17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm
olivier.m...@6wind.com"
> , "chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com"
> , "bruce.richard...@intel.com"
> , "konstantin.anan...@intel.com"
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
>
> 29/10/
29/10/2018 11:16, Jerin Jacob:
> From: "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)"
> >
> > Hi Thomas and Jerin,
> >
> > The patches were extensively reviewed by Arm internally, as the 1st patch
> > was not able to be concluded, I created a new patch series(2 patches).
> > How can I clean up this mess?
>
olivier.m...@6wind.com"
> , "chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com"
> , "bruce.richard...@intel.com"
> , "konstantin.anan...@intel.com"
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
>
> Hi
..@dpdk.org;
> Ola Liljedahl ; olivier.m...@6wind.com;
> chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; bruce.richard...@intel.com;
> konstantin.anan...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
> -Original Message-
> > Date: Sat
ahalli
> ,
> > "sta...@dpdk.org" , Ola Liljedahl
> > , "olivier.m...@6wind.com"
> > , "chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com"
> > , "bruce.richard...@intel.com"
> > , "konstantin.anan...@intel.com"
> >
> > Subjec
27/10/2018 17:34, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 27/10/2018 17:00, Jerin Jacob:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > > 17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China):
> > > > > Hi Jerin
> > > > >
> > > > > As the 1st one of the 3-patch set was not concluded, I submit this
> > > > > 2-p
olivier.m...@6wind.com"
> , "chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com"
> , "bruce.richard...@intel.com"
> , "konstantin.anan...@intel.com"
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
>
> 27/10/2
27/10/2018 17:00, Jerin Jacob:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China):
> > > Hi Jerin
> > >
> > > As the 1st one of the 3-patch set was not concluded, I submit this
> > > 2-patch series to unblock the merge.
> >
> > The thread is totally messed up because:
a
> Liljedahl , olivier.m...@6wind.com,
> chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bruce.richard...@intel.com,
> konstantin.anan...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ring: synchronize the load and store of
> the tail
>
> External Email
>
> 17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm Te
17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China):
> Hi Jerin
>
> As the 1st one of the 3-patch set was not concluded, I submit this 2-patch
> series to unblock the merge.
The thread is totally messed up because:
- there is no cover letter
- some different series (testpmd, i40e a
Hi Jerin
As the 1st one of the 3-patch set was not concluded, I submit this 2-patch
series to unblock the merge.
Best Regards,
Gavin
> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Hu
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:30 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) ; Honnappa
> N
Synchronize the load-acquire of the tail and the store-release
within update_tail, the store release ensures all the ring operations,
enqueue or dequeue, are seen by the observers on the other side as soon
as they see the updated tail. The load-acquire is needed here as the
data dependency is not a
15 matches
Mail list logo
