From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/3] Thread safe rte_vhost_enqueue_burst(). Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <10269895.UfVQWhbqLk@xps13> References: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Dyasly Sergey , Jerin Jacob , Jianbo Liu , Tetsuya Mukawa To: Ilya Maximets , Huawei Xie , Yuanhan Liu , bruce.richardson@intel.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6D85693 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:31:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id l68so31395420wml.0 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-02-24 14:47, Ilya Maximets: > Implementation of rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() based on lockless ring-buffer > algorithm and contains almost all to be thread-safe, but it's not. > > This set adds required changes. > > First patch in set is a standalone patch that fixes many times discussed > issue with barriers on different architectures. > > Second and third adds fixes to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safe. My understanding is that we do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks. Huawei, Yuanhan, Bruce, do you confirm?