From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ring: check for zero objects mc dequeue /
 mp enqueue
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:27:18 +0100
Message-ID: <56EBD806.8010707@6wind.com>
References: <1458229783-15547-1-git-send-email-l@nofutznetworks.com>
 <CAPwdgqj8TRTAa8wRqmKZ3PT-2K6nbS8AAYfOrk=mcO_isU_W7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160318101823.GC4848@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Lazaros Koromilas <l@nofutznetworks.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Mauricio_V=c3=a1squez?= <mauricio.vasquezbernal@studenti.polito.it>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771FA5947
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:27:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id p65so30381554wmp.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160318101823.GC4848@bricha3-MOBL3>
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>

Hi,

On 03/18/2016 11:18 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
>>> index 943c97c..eb45e41 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
>>> @@ -431,6 +431,11 @@ __rte_ring_mp_do_enqueue(struct rte_ring *r, void *
>>> const *obj_table,
>>>         uint32_t mask = r->prod.mask;
>>>         int ret;
>>>
>>> +       /* Avoid the unnecessary cmpset operation below, which is also
>>> +        * potentially harmful when n equals 0. */
>>> +       if (n == 0)
>>>
>>
>> What about using unlikely here?
>>
> 
> Unless there is a measurable performance increase by adding in likely/unlikely
> I'd suggest avoiding it's use. In general, likely/unlikely should only be used
> for things like catestrophic errors because the penalty for taking the unlikely
> leg of the code can be quite severe. For normal stuff, where the code nearly
> always goes one way in the branch but occasionally goes the other, the hardware
> branch predictors generally do a good enough job.

Do you mean using likely/unlikely could be worst than not using it
in this case?

To me, using unlikely here is not a bad idea: it shows to the compiler
and to the reader of the code that is case is not the usual case.


Olivier