From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68CDC4332F for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 18:49:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5D3410EA; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 19:49:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61A9406A2 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 19:49:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086) id 0D8B320B74C0; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 10:49:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 0D8B320B74C0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1699469362; bh=N1x4sqMS1fBb3nqiQwzSXIxgOuAd7LK2E5/BrDUjeCc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=n2mKVP9YYC4wnCdvVfy4CTtSUAn08q22XtpVlmwZGxy9CgT97b9htCAc/djUSw1GE Sf+MCBOiBIc1lP7npC7jbQabAkOKZyKgbJGZwati9Hr+yqF59zecoQ9zRGVq6/OBJs 9ElqtDqryRn4veM765m3QGChxCLCiMzJCPElK+xI= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 10:49:22 -0800 From: Tyler Retzlaff To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , David Hunt , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Jerin Jacob , Konstantin Ananyev , Sameh Gobriel , Sunil Kumar Kori , Vladimir Medvedkin , Yipeng Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use rte atomic thread fence Message-ID: <20231108184922.GB21615@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <1698894265-22963-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> <2796747.XrmoMso0CX@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2796747.XrmoMso0CX@thomas> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 02/11/2023 04:04, Tyler Retzlaff: > > Replace use of __atomic_thread_fence with __rte_atomic_thread_fence. > > > > It may be appropriate to use rte_atomic_thread_fence instead but it > > will be up to maintainers to evaluate and make the change if appropriate. > > I don't understand the use of __rte_atomic_thread_fence > which is supposed to be EAL-internal only, isn't it? > > On x86, we have this: > static __rte_always_inline void > rte_atomic_thread_fence(rte_memory_order memorder) > { > if (memorder == rte_memory_order_seq_cst) > rte_smp_mb(); > else > __rte_atomic_thread_fence(memorder); > } > > This is skipped if you use __rte_atomic_thread_fence() directly. correct. that is on purpose because the original code was skipping condition by using __atomic_thread_fence directly. this series intends no functional change which is why the replacements are __rte_atomic_thread_fence instead of to rte_atomic_thread_fence. i would encourage the maintainers to evaluate whether the code can use rte_atomic_thread_fence directly without functional regression. ty