From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] doc: add note about
	rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safety.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:14:14 +0100
Message-ID: <3343596.CjhAKlsm75@xps13>
References: <1455863563-15751-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <56C6DACA.7040109@samsung.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5EC0DB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA4956B7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:15:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id g62so164451519wme.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:15:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5EC0DB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-02-22 02:07, Xie, Huawei:
> On 2/19/2016 5:05 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> > On 19.02.2016 11:36, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> >> On 2/19/2016 3:10 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:43AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst | 1 +
> >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst
> >>>> index 403e5fc..13a6c89 100644
> >>>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst
> >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst
> >>>>  The mempool library is based on the DPDK lockless ring library and therefore is also multi-thread safe.
> >>>> +rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() is also thread safe because based on lockless ring-buffer algorithm like the ring library.
> >>> FYI, Huawei meant to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() not be thread-safe,
> >>> to aligh with the usage of rte_eth_tx_burst().
> >>>
> >>> 	--yliu
> >> I have a patch to remove the lockless enqueue. Unless there is strong
> >> reason, i prefer vhost PMD to behave like other PMDs, with no internal
> >> lockless algorithm. In future, for people who really need it, we could
> >> have dynamic/static switch to enable it.
> 
> Thomas, what is your opinion on this and my patch removing lockless enqueue?

The thread safety behaviour is part of the API specification.
If we want to enable/disable such behaviour, it must be done with an API
function. But it would introduce a conditional statement in the fast path.
That's why the priority must be to keep a simple and consistent behaviour
and try to build around. An API complexity may be considered only if there
is a real (measured) gain.