From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CE1A00E6 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:10:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A891B9AC; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:10:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64EB1B952 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:10:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667DC2B; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com (net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com [10.169.40.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CD2323F246; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:10:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Ruifeng Wang To: vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com, nd@arm.com, Ruifeng Wang Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:09:22 +0800 Message-Id: <20190712030923.37832-6-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190712030923.37832-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> References: <20190605055451.30473-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <20190712030923.37832-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/6] lib/lpm: data update optimization for v1604 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" The table entries were updated field by field. There were two issues: 1. bitwise operations are read-modify-write sequences and not atomic, nor efficient. 2. the above non-atomic operations causes entries out of synchronization and inconsistency. This patch combines the fields into a one-go 32bit entry update to avoid inconsistency and as a bonus save CPU cycles. Suggested-by: Gavin Hu Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu --- lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index d35d64448..d86248713 100644 --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c @@ -1035,9 +1035,14 @@ add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth, /* Set tbl8 entry. */ for (i = tbl8_index; i < (tbl8_index + tbl8_range); i++) { - lpm->tbl8[i].depth = depth; - lpm->tbl8[i].next_hop = next_hop; - lpm->tbl8[i].valid = VALID; + struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry new_tbl8_entry = { + .valid = VALID, + .depth = depth, + .valid_group = lpm->tbl8[i].valid_group, + .next_hop = next_hop, + }; + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl8[i], &new_tbl8_entry, + __ATOMIC_RELAXED); } /* @@ -1075,19 +1080,28 @@ add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth, /* Populate new tbl8 with tbl24 value. */ for (i = tbl8_group_start; i < tbl8_group_end; i++) { - lpm->tbl8[i].valid = VALID; - lpm->tbl8[i].depth = lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].depth; - lpm->tbl8[i].next_hop = - lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].next_hop; + struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry new_tbl8_entry = { + .valid = VALID, + .depth = lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].depth, + .valid_group = lpm->tbl8[i].valid_group, + .next_hop = lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].next_hop, + }; + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl8[i], &new_tbl8_entry, + __ATOMIC_RELAXED); } tbl8_index = tbl8_group_start + (ip_masked & 0xFF); /* Insert new rule into the tbl8 entry. */ for (i = tbl8_index; i < tbl8_index + tbl8_range; i++) { - lpm->tbl8[i].valid = VALID; - lpm->tbl8[i].depth = depth; - lpm->tbl8[i].next_hop = next_hop; + struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry new_tbl8_entry = { + .valid = VALID, + .depth = depth, + .valid_group = lpm->tbl8[i].valid_group, + .next_hop = next_hop, + }; + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl8[i], &new_tbl8_entry, + __ATOMIC_RELAXED); } /* -- 2.17.1