Hi Satya, Yeah so I suspect since the updates were never MP-safe, they required the workers getting the barrier; so the condition I speculated about in my other mail won’t have occurred... (I am still puzzled by why you see no problem if updating for only one worker, so not sure if that theory is right - but then again, maybe just multiple workers sitting trying to acquire lock create the more “favourable” timing.)
If the test tweak that I suggested earlier confirms the theory, then it might be a beginning of a nice feature to make ACL change API also MP-safe :-) Could you also tell me a bit more about the type of changes/scenario that you are doing, for my education ? —a > On 15 Jul 2020, at 21:45, Satya Murthy <satyamurthy1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for the quick response. > > All the activity that we are performing with ACLs, like , add and delete of > ACLs from multiple workers, we are doing by taking a lock. > This will ensure that no two workers will be able to operate on ACLs at the > same time. > > Is there any specific restriction that ACL operations needs to be performed > from main thread only ? > Is this restriction coming due to thread synchronization or some data > structures / heaps. > > Please let us know. > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Murthy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16977): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16977 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/75527176/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
