From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
To: bruce.richardson@intel.com, pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
yipeng1.wang@intel.com, dharmik.thakkar@arm.com,
gavin.hu@arm.com, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, nd@arm.com
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] hash: separate lf and rw lock lookup code paths
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:39:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181109163917.16845-5-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181109163917.16845-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
The lock-free algorithm has caused significant lookup
performance regression for certain use cases. The
regression is attributed to the use of non-relaxed
memory orderings. 2 versions of the lookup functions
are created. One that uses the RW lock and the one that
is lock-free. This restores the performance regression
caused for use cases that used RW lock version of the
lookup function.
Fixes: e605a1d36 ("hash: add lock-free r/w concurrency")
Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com
Suggested-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
---
lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c b/lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
index 9390dc5e4..7e1a9ac96 100644
--- a/lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
+++ b/lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
@@ -1129,10 +1129,11 @@ rte_hash_add_key_data(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key, void *data)
return ret;
}
-/* Search one bucket to find the match key */
+/* Search one bucket to find the match key - uses rw lock */
static inline int32_t
-search_one_bucket(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key, uint16_t sig,
- void **data, const struct rte_hash_bucket *bkt)
+search_one_bucket_l(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
+ uint16_t sig, void **data,
+ const struct rte_hash_bucket *bkt)
{
int i;
struct rte_hash_key *k, *keys = h->key_store;
@@ -1191,8 +1192,8 @@ search_one_bucket_lf(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key, uint16_t sig,
}
static inline int32_t
-__rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
- hash_sig_t sig, void **data)
+__rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_l(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
+ hash_sig_t sig, void **data)
{
uint32_t prim_bucket_idx, sec_bucket_idx;
struct rte_hash_bucket *bkt, *cur_bkt;
@@ -1207,7 +1208,7 @@ __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
/* Check if key is in primary location */
bkt = &h->buckets[prim_bucket_idx];
- ret = search_one_bucket(h, key, short_sig, data, bkt);
+ ret = search_one_bucket_l(h, key, short_sig, data, bkt);
if (ret != -1) {
__hash_rw_reader_unlock(h);
return ret;
@@ -1217,7 +1218,7 @@ __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
/* Check if key is in secondary location */
FOR_EACH_BUCKET(cur_bkt, bkt) {
- ret = search_one_bucket(h, key, short_sig,
+ ret = search_one_bucket_l(h, key, short_sig,
data, cur_bkt);
if (ret != -1) {
__hash_rw_reader_unlock(h);
@@ -1291,6 +1292,16 @@ __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_lf(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
return -ENOENT;
}
+static inline int32_t
+__rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,
+ hash_sig_t sig, void **data)
+{
+ if (h->readwrite_concur_lf_support)
+ return __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_lf(h, key, sig, data);
+ else
+ return __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_l(h, key, sig, data);
+}
+
int32_t
rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h,
const void *key, hash_sig_t sig)
@@ -1592,7 +1603,7 @@ compare_signatures(uint32_t *prim_hash_matches, uint32_t *sec_hash_matches,
#define PREFETCH_OFFSET 4
static inline void
-__rte_hash_lookup_bulk(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
+__rte_hash_lookup_bulk_l(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
int32_t num_keys, int32_t *positions,
uint64_t *hit_mask, void *data[])
{
@@ -1762,10 +1773,10 @@ __rte_hash_lookup_bulk(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
next_bkt = secondary_bkt[i]->next;
FOR_EACH_BUCKET(cur_bkt, next_bkt) {
if (data != NULL)
- ret = search_one_bucket(h, keys[i],
+ ret = search_one_bucket_l(h, keys[i],
sig[i], &data[i], cur_bkt);
else
- ret = search_one_bucket(h, keys[i],
+ ret = search_one_bucket_l(h, keys[i],
sig[i], NULL, cur_bkt);
if (ret != -1) {
positions[i] = ret;
@@ -2005,6 +2016,19 @@ __rte_hash_lookup_bulk_lf(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
*hit_mask = hits;
}
+static inline void
+__rte_hash_lookup_bulk(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
+ int32_t num_keys, int32_t *positions,
+ uint64_t *hit_mask, void *data[])
+{
+ if (h->readwrite_concur_lf_support)
+ return __rte_hash_lookup_bulk_lf(h, keys, num_keys,
+ positions, hit_mask, data);
+ else
+ return __rte_hash_lookup_bulk_l(h, keys, num_keys,
+ positions, hit_mask, data);
+}
+
int
rte_hash_lookup_bulk(const struct rte_hash *h, const void **keys,
uint32_t num_keys, int32_t *positions)
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-09 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-09 16:39 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-09 16:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] hash: prepare for lock-free and rw-lock separation Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-09 16:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] hash: remove rw-lock calls from lock-free functions Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-09 16:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] hash: remove memory orderings from rw-lock lookup fns Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-10 8:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-10 18:58 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-09 16:39 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli [this message]
2018-11-10 18:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/1] hash: separate lf and rw lock lookup code paths Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-10 18:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-11 7:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-13 16:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-11-11 21:43 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-11-12 4:50 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
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=20181109163917.16845-5-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--to=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
--cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.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).