[PATCH] doc/eal: add caveat about spinlocks from non-pinned threads
Stephen Hemminger
stephen at networkplumber.org
Sat Jun 11 02:00:11 CEST 2022
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:48:15 -0700
Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > ++ locking
> > +
> > + If a pthread, that is not pinned to an lcore acquires a lock such as a
>
> nit: suggest not using term pthread but instead just say thread as not
> to imply a specific platform/implementation.
>
> > + DPDK based lock (rte_spinlock, rte_rwlock, rte_ticketlock, rte_mcslock)
> > + then there is a possibility of large application delays.
> > + The problem is that if a thread is scheduled off the CPU while it holds
> > + a lock, then other threads will waste time spinning on the lock until
>
> 'until the lock holder' -> 'until the thread holding the lock'
>
> but i'm not really fussed, just a suggestion.
Sure, that wording was from existing pthread_spin_init() man page
More information about the dev
mailing list