> On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote:
>
> Hi Jarno,
>
> While trying to rebase my "dpcls per in_port" patch to your updated
> pvector/cpvector implementation, I have stumbled over a threading issue in
> your patch.
>
> I believe that dpcls_destroy_subtable(), which may be invoke
Hi Jarno,
While trying to rebase my "dpcls per in_port" patch to your updated
pvector/cpvector implementation, I have stumbled over a threading issue in your
patch.
I believe that dpcls_destroy_subtable(), which may be invoked from revalidater
threads at flow removal, should not simply call th
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 05:26:17AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> PMD threads use pvectors but do not need the overhead of the
>> concurrent version. Expose the non-concurrent version for
>> that use.
>>
>> Note that struct pvector is renam
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 05:26:17AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> PMD threads use pvectors but do not need the overhead of the
> concurrent version. Expose the non-concurrent version for
> that use.
>
> Note that struct pvector is renamed as struct cpvector (for concurrent
> priority vector), an
