Re: [PATCH] doc/eal: add caveat about spinlocks from non-pinned threads

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:48:15 -0700
Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >  
> > ++ locking
> > +
> > +  If a pthread, that is not pinned to an lcore acquires a lock such as a  
> 
> nit: suggest not using term pthread but instead just say thread as not
> to imply a specific platform/implementation.
> 
> > +  DPDK based lock (rte_spinlock, rte_rwlock, rte_ticketlock, rte_mcslock)
> > +  then there is a possibility of large application delays.
> > +  The problem is that if a thread is scheduled off the CPU while it holds
> > +  a lock, then other threads will waste time spinning on the lock until  
> 
> 'until the lock holder' -> 'until the thread holding the lock'
> 
> but i'm not really fussed, just a suggestion.

Sure, that wording was from existing pthread_spin_init() man page