From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: Added Spinlock to l3fwd-vf example to prevent race conditioning Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20141210145455.GC1632@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1404818184-29388-1-git-send-email-danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com> <20141208144545.GD3237@localhost.localdomain> <20141210144745.GC17040@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Neil Horman Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141210144745.GC17040-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:47:45AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 08:18:36AM +0000, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote: > > > Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of enqueue > > > to a port should be the responsibility of the library, not the application? > > > > > > Neil > > > > From my knowledge it is an application responsibility to serialize access to > > queue on particular port. > > > I understand thats the way it currently is, I'm advocating for the fact that it > should not be. > Neil > It could be done, but I think we'd need to add a new API (or new parameter to existing API) to do so, as the cost of adding the locks would be severe, even in the uncontented case. This is why it hasn't been done up till now, obviously enough. In general, where we don't provide performant multi-thread safe APIs, we generally don't try and provide versions with locks, we just document the limitation and then leave it up to the app to determine how best to handle things. /Bruce