Hello, On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:30 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello Honnappa, > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:32 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Use WFE for spinlock and ring > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The rte_wait_until_equal_xxx APIs abstract the functionality of > > > > 'polling for a memory location to become equal to a given value'[1]. > > > > > > > > Use the API for the rte spinlock and ring implementations. > > > > > > > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/cover/62703/ > > > > > > > > Gavin Hu (2): > > > > spinlock: use wfe to reduce contention on aarch64 > > > > ring: use wfe to wait for ring tail update on aarch64 > > > > > > This would result in rte_ring and rte_spinlock APIs becoming experimental > > > and this breaks compilation for external applications using stable ring > > > and > > > spinlock APIs. > > > IIRC, it was the reason why these patches were dropped with the > > > introduction > > > of the rte_wait_until_equal_* API. > > Agreed, the rte_ring new sync modes are resulting in different use cases > > for these APIs. We need to take a relook at the APIs. > > Will we reconsider this series now that the wait until equal is going stable?
Any update? I suppose this would need some rebasing after the ring library changes. Thanks. -- David Marchand
