From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: rte_hash thread safe Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:14:11 -0700 Message-ID: <20180423181411.68dadcef@xeon-e3> References: <20180423165039.51393aad@xeon-e3> <20180423173034.7086b772@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brijesh Singh , dev@dpdk.org To: Jim Murphy Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com (mail-pf0-f193.google.com [209.85.192.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18243F3E for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 03:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id g14so10787567pfh.3 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:14:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:48:50 -0700 Jim Murphy wrote: > Anecdotally I've heard that the urcu hash implementation is slower than > rte_hash based on pure lookup performance. Has anyone considered adding RCU > hooks into rte_hash? Not really possible with DPDK (as I said earlier) because DPDK does not have concept of thread quiescent period to allow for safe deletion. You could manually use RCU concepts of RCU and RTE hash; it would require using userspace RCU primitives inside DPDK. This would cause a dependency that would prevent that from ever being merged upstream due to license conflict; but since DPDK is liberal BSD license you are free to do it and maintain it on your own.