> > On Jun 2, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:50:45PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd really hope that any serious OVS implementation would be able to >>>> use C11 or GCC or Clang or other compiler-specific techniques to get a >>>> "real" implementation of atomics. Really the pthreads version is just >>>> to make porting easier. >>> >>> Are we already documenting this somewhere? >> >> I don't think so. It wasn't the attitude I started out with; >> originally I hoped that the pthreads implementation would be viable >> for real use, but I'm really not sure about that any longer. > > I just ran \x93time ./ovstest test-cmap check 1\x94, with > ovs-atomics-pthreads it takes 16 times longer than on master. So it is likely > unusable in practice, so this would be the time to document it, I guess.
while i guess test-cmap is far from the real usage, documenting expectations is a good idea. "ovs-atomic-pthreads implementation is provided for portability. It might be too slow for real use because Open vSwitch is optimized for platforms where real atomic ops are available." YAMAMOTO Takashi > > Jarno > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
