>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
> > > > >
> > > > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem
> > > > > code properly,
> > > > As per the current rules, these changes (in
>
> > >
> > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
> > > >
> > > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem
> > > > code properly,
> > > As per the current rules, these changes (in the current form)
> >
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
> > >
> > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem code
> > > properly,
> > As per the current rules, these changes (in the current form) will be
> > acc
>
>
>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
> >
> > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem code
> > properly,
> As per the current rules, these changes (in the current form) will be
> accepted onl
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
>
> Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem code properly,
As per the current rules, these changes (in the current form) will be accepted
only for 20.11 release. Ho
> >
> >
> > I tested on an arm64 HW. The former section is without the
> > patch(20.02) and later one with this patch.
> > I agree with Konstantin that getting more platform tests will be good
> > early so that we can focus on the approach
> > to avoid back and forth latter.
> >
> >
> > RTE>>ring_
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:11 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
wrote:
We do have a run-time check in our current enqueue()/dequeue implementation.
In fact we support both modes: we have generic
rte_ring_enqueue(/dequeue)_bulk(/burst)
where sync behaviour is determined at runtime by value of prod(/cons).s
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:11 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
wrote:
> We do have a run-time check in our current enqueue()/dequeue implementation.
> In fact we support both modes: we have generic
> rte_ring_enqueue(/dequeue)_bulk(/burst)
> where sync behaviour is determined at runtime by value of prod(/c
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev,
> Konstantin
>
> > > > > More and more customers use(/try to use) DPDK based apps within
> > > > > overcommitted systems (multiple acttive threads over same
> pysical cores):
> > > > > VM, container deployments, etc.
> > > > > T
> > > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem code
> > > > properly, etc.
> > > > I plan to deal with all these things in later versions.
> > > > Right now I seek an initial feedback about proposed ideas.
> > > > Wou
> > > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem
> > > > code properly, etc.
> > > > I plan to deal with all these things in later versions.
> > > > Right now I seek an initial feedback about proposed ideas.
> > > > Wou
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:35 PM
> > To: Jerin Jacob
> > Cc: Konstantin Ananyev ; dpdk-dev
> > ; Olivier Matz
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:29 PM Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:35:09 +
> > Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem code
> > > properly, etc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:35 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob
> Cc: Konstantin Ananyev ; dpdk-dev
> ; Olivier Matz
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/6] New sync modes for ring
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:29:57 +0530
Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:29 PM Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:35:09 +
> > Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> > > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:29 PM Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:35:09 +
> Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
>
> > Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> > It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem
> > code properly, etc.
> > I plan to deal with a
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:35:09 +
Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> Upfront note - that RFC is not a complete patch.
> It introduces an ABI breakage, plus it doesn't update ring_elem
> code properly, etc.
> I plan to deal with all these things in later versions.
> Right now I seek an initial feedback
17 matches
Mail list logo
