From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Cc: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>,
Chao Zhu <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
pradeep@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/ppc: remove fix of memory barrier for IBM POWER
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:45:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12440555.pBuX5BjkXC@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB37957B54AFF7FF8C0629CDFCC3400@AM0PR0502MB3795.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
19/03/2019 20:42, Shahaf Shuler:
> Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/ppc: remove fix of memory barrier for IBM POWER
> >
> > Guys, please let's avoid top-post.
> >
> > You are both not replying to each other:
> >
> > 1/ Dekel mentioned the IBM doc but Chao did not argue about the lack of IO
> > protection with lwsync.
> > We assume that rte_mb should protect any access including IO.
> >
> > 2/ Chao asked about the semantic of the barrier used in mlx5 code, but Dekel
> > did not reply about the semantic: are we protecting IO or general memory
> > access?
>
> In mlx5 code we want to sync between two different writes:
> 1. write to system memory (RAM)
> 2. write to MMIO memory (device)
>
> We need #1 to be visible on host memory before #2 is committed to NIC.
> We want to have a single type of barrier which will translate to the correct assembly based on the system arch, and in addition we want it light-weight as possible.
>
> So far, when not running on power, we used the rte_wmb for that. On x86 and ARM systems it provided the needed guarantees.
> It is also mentioned in the barrier doxygen on ARM arch:
> "
> Write memory barrier.
>
> Guarantees that the STORE operations generated before the barrier
> occur before the STORE operations generated after.
> "
>
> It doesn't restrict to store to system memory only.
> w/ power is on somewhat different and in fact rte_mb is required. It obviously miss the point of those barrier if we will need to use a different barrier based on the system arch.
>
> We need to align the definition of the different barriers in DPDK:
> 1. need a clear documentation of each. this should be global and not part of the specific implementation on each arch.
The global definition is in lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
There are some copy/paste in Arm32 and PPC that I will remove.
> 2. either modify ppc rte_wmb to match ARM and x86 ones or to define a new type of barrier which will sync between both I/O and stores to systems memory.
The basic memory barrier of DPDK does not mention
a difference between I/O and system memory.
It is not explicit (yet) but I assume it is protecting both.
So, in my opinion, we need to make it explicit in the doc,
and fix the PPC implementation to comply with this definition.
Anyway, I don't see any significant effort from IBM to move from
the alpha support stage to a real Open Source support.
PS: sending a mail every two months, to promise improvements, is not enough!
-----------------
> > 19/03/2019 11:05, Dekel Peled:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > For ppc, rte_io_mb() is defined as rte_mb(), which is defined as asm sync.
> > > According to comments in arch/ppc_64/rte_atomic.h, rte_wmb() and
> > rte_rmb() are the same as rte_mb(), for store and load respectively.
> > > My patch propose to define rte_wmb() and rte_rmb() as asm sync, like
> > rte_mb(), since using lwsync is incorrect for them.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dekel
> > >
> > > From: Chao Zhu <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Dekel£¬
> > > >
> > > > To control the memory order for device memory, I think you should
> > > > use
> > > > rte_io_mb() instead of rte_mb(). This will generate correct result.
> > > > rte_wmb() is used for system memory.
> > > >
> > > > From: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > From previous patch description: "to improve performance on PPC64,
> > > > > use light weight sync instruction instead of sync instruction."
> > > > >
> > > > > Excerpt from IBM doc [1], section "Memory barrier instructions":
> > > > > "The second form of the sync instruction is light-weight sync, or lwsync.
> > > > > This form is used to control ordering for storage accesses to
> > > > > system memory only. It does not create a memory barrier for
> > > > > accesses to device
> > > > memory."
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch removes the use of lwsync, so calls to rte_wmb() and
> > > > > rte_rmb() will provide correct memory barrier to ensure order of
> > > > > accesses to system memory and device memory.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-19 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-18 12:58 Dekel Peled
2019-03-18 12:58 ` Dekel Peled
2019-03-19 3:24 ` Chao Zhu
2019-03-19 3:24 ` Chao Zhu
2019-03-19 10:05 ` Dekel Peled
2019-03-19 10:05 ` Dekel Peled
2019-03-19 11:14 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-19 11:14 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-19 19:42 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-19 19:42 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-19 20:45 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-03-19 20:45 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-20 22:40 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-20 22:40 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-21 8:49 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-21 8:49 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-22 1:40 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-22 1:40 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-22 8:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-22 8:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-22 15:30 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-22 15:30 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-22 17:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-22 17:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-22 22:57 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-22 22:57 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-24 6:37 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-24 6:37 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-03-24 17:37 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-24 17:37 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-26 9:15 ` Dekel Peled
2019-03-26 9:15 ` Dekel Peled
2019-03-27 9:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-27 9:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-27 23:50 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-27 23:50 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
[not found] ` <OF456B0ECC.006EF7E7-ON882583CA.00827A75-882583CA.0082F7BE@LocalDomain>
2019-03-28 17:51 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-28 17:51 ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2019-03-28 17:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-28 17:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-28 22:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-28 22:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=12440555.pBuX5BjkXC@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dekelp@mellanox.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=orika@mellanox.com \
--cc=pradeep@us.ibm.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=yskoh@mellanox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).