This comment makes users aware of the non-blocking ring option and its caveats.
Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com> --- doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst index 9497b879c..b6ac236d6 100644 --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst @@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ Known Issues 5. It MUST not be used by multi-producer/consumer pthreads, whose scheduling policies are SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR. - Alternatively, x86_64 applications can use the non-blocking stack mempool handler. When considering this handler, note that: + Alternatively, x86_64 applications can use the non-blocking ring or stack mempool handlers. When considering one of them, note that: - it is limited to the x86_64 platform, because it uses an instruction (16-byte compare-and-swap) that is not available on other platforms. - it has worse average-case performance than the non-preemptive rte_ring, but software caching (e.g. the mempool cache) can mitigate this by reducing the number of handler operations. -- 2.13.6