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 2CAE5A052A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D4C1DD51; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:52:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775B91DD2E for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:52:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id f7so5848074wrw.1 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rNCJuzG01z/PazorAExAh+V1hVfaPWG/lRfTU86SNgg=; b=Qo5F5ZmtO4uLYJ8jxsHoN+tzlBElWONE+Ukdl+Hj6ivVQhl8FvYfuIpHx27rVBMYOL 9774tSdOXWQohmwQ5+PmfxBcsgDRxopoC2GN2gQTn0SBV+Jq5jKE7OBogpkpeYku22uX tZaqnXBdESgQ8kMWe8+hCsUyyzJCxKf6ptj5PUylXeXNQ1PHTy80B5t8qJ5qCqnoPm6g AFmFEfk9UWB7X92j+J4AipPS0OF2Rm8jorJsMiAVlJlwaC7xgjzhgf/uCdk6ezYfla7n qknC2MDMsqbFCPf0wqdh9T1P9EP6BditItlivGZlyuL3zJ23IWcOVayS0jUcqYdHeEHD MUFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rNCJuzG01z/PazorAExAh+V1hVfaPWG/lRfTU86SNgg=; b=NAaJgDKXBmTnncIn8M6GX4zDpZb6tiPFqHvyTFv4xGYlx+xNAGaboUDjFP4giEK44g GduH5bbJfHIjUzxvBK5AEWHZhY/JeopGwPKiLPny+8lUkuWL+Sx/kpES/A2oWhtaT9La rTqP/XOmdWYjgEkiSlyK6LvjJxNf9n2PAgdf0LKjjXernQ/Fqc3Xw1Qttwd/ySmqOR1h TvcjJxSwjKROOES406UkfkxXgpkX7b/X2HWdeyE94g5JUCqbun7U7gYihwx5QRMh0n1A cRA8kvQEAAqhiGJaUZuvWcWV8chz9NWzaZZRBPQjvFiTCafJyyUtt4O60PrDEPCL7Ilf ITBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530unUngC8tJs0KfpSiLMBl5ceDZJoYqRBnfUANDEbEfJjiBjzvR KEaJRUtWKvWHAISSWhiPo5Wc4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzjjXA3j8xg4trFVuDOTTut/Xw3xN3rLUUzLEXEal0N9Le0wQejeCM5FJiLZYNhx4NtG3oXng== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a4f:: with SMTP id v15mr64709471wrs.87.1594385571053; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x7sm10510680wrr.72.2020.07.10.05.52.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:52:49 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "jielong.zjl@antfin.com" , "Eads, Gage" Message-ID: <20200710125249.GZ5869@platinum> References: <20200521132027.28219-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <20200629161024.29059-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <20200709161829.GV5869@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool/ring: add support for new ring sync modes 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" Hi Konstantin, On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:55:30PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:10:24PM +0100, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > > > v2: > > > - update Release Notes (as per comments) > > > > > > Two new sync modes were introduced into rte_ring: > > > relaxed tail sync (RTS) and head/tail sync (HTS). > > > This change provides user with ability to select these > > > modes for ring based mempool via mempool ops API. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > Acked-by: Gage Eads > > > --- > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst | 6 ++ > > > drivers/mempool/ring/rte_mempool_ring.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst > > > index eaaf11c37..7bdcf3aac 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst > > > @@ -84,6 +84,12 @@ New Features > > > * Dump ``rte_flow`` memory consumption. > > > * Measure packet per second forwarding. > > > > > > +* **Added support for new sync modes into mempool ring driver.** > > > + > > > + Added ability to select new ring synchronisation modes: > > > + ``relaxed tail sync (ring_mt_rts)`` and ``head/tail sync (ring_mt_hts)`` > > > + via mempool ops API. > > > + > > > > > > Removed Items > > > ------------- > > > diff --git a/drivers/mempool/ring/rte_mempool_ring.c b/drivers/mempool/ring/rte_mempool_ring.c > > > index bc123fc52..15ec7dee7 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mempool/ring/rte_mempool_ring.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mempool/ring/rte_mempool_ring.c > > > @@ -25,6 +25,22 @@ common_ring_sp_enqueue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const *obj_table, > > > obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static int > > > +rts_ring_mp_enqueue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const *obj_table, > > > + unsigned int n) > > > +{ > > > + return rte_ring_mp_rts_enqueue_bulk(mp->pool_data, > > > + obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int > > > +hts_ring_mp_enqueue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const *obj_table, > > > + unsigned int n) > > > +{ > > > + return rte_ring_mp_hts_enqueue_bulk(mp->pool_data, > > > + obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static int > > > common_ring_mc_dequeue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void **obj_table, unsigned n) > > > { > > > @@ -39,17 +55,30 @@ common_ring_sc_dequeue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void **obj_table, unsigned n) > > > obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static int > > > +rts_ring_mc_dequeue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void **obj_table, unsigned int n) > > > +{ > > > + return rte_ring_mc_rts_dequeue_bulk(mp->pool_data, > > > + obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int > > > +hts_ring_mc_dequeue(struct rte_mempool *mp, void **obj_table, unsigned int n) > > > +{ > > > + return rte_ring_mc_hts_dequeue_bulk(mp->pool_data, > > > + obj_table, n, NULL) == 0 ? -ENOBUFS : 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static unsigned > > > common_ring_get_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > { > > > return rte_ring_count(mp->pool_data); > > > } > > > > > > - > > > static int > > > -common_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > +ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp, uint32_t rg_flags) > > > { > > > - int rg_flags = 0, ret; > > > + int ret; > > > char rg_name[RTE_RING_NAMESIZE]; > > > struct rte_ring *r; > > > > > > @@ -60,12 +89,6 @@ common_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > return -rte_errno; > > > } > > > > > > - /* ring flags */ > > > - if (mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT) > > > - rg_flags |= RING_F_SP_ENQ; > > > - if (mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET) > > > - rg_flags |= RING_F_SC_DEQ; > > > - > > > /* > > > * Allocate the ring that will be used to store objects. > > > * Ring functions will return appropriate errors if we are > > > @@ -82,6 +105,40 @@ common_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static int > > > +common_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > +{ > > > + uint32_t rg_flags; > > > + > > > + rg_flags = 0; > > > > Maybe it could go on the same line > > > > > + > > > + /* ring flags */ > > > > Not sure we need to keep this comment > > > > > + if (mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT) > > > + rg_flags |= RING_F_SP_ENQ; > > > + if (mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET) > > > + rg_flags |= RING_F_SC_DEQ; > > > + > > > + return ring_alloc(mp, rg_flags); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int > > > +rts_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > +{ > > > + if ((mp->flags & (MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT | MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET)) != 0) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > Why do we need this? It is a problem to allow sc/sp in this mode (even > > if it's not optimal)? > > These new sync modes (RTS, HTS) are for MT. > For SP/SC - there is simply no point to use MT sync modes. > I suppose there are few choices: > 1. Make F_SP_PUT/F_SC_GET flags silently override expected ops behaviour > and create actual ring with ST sync mode for prod/cons. > 2. Report an error. > 3. Silently ignore these flags. > > As I can see for "ring_mp_mc" ops, we doing #1, > while for "stack" we are doing #3. > For RTS/HTS I chosoe #2, as it seems cleaner to me. > Any thoughts from your side what preferable behaviour should be? The F_SP_PUT/F_SC_GET are only used in rte_mempool_create() to select the default ops among (ring_sp_sc, ring_mp_sc, ring_sp_mc, ring_mp_mc). I don't think we should look at it when using specific ops. So I'll tend to say 3. is the correct thing to do. > > > > > > + > > > + return ring_alloc(mp, RING_F_MP_RTS_ENQ | RING_F_MC_RTS_DEQ); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int > > > +hts_ring_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > +{ > > > + if ((mp->flags & (MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT | MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET)) != 0) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + return ring_alloc(mp, RING_F_MP_HTS_ENQ | RING_F_MC_HTS_DEQ); > > > +} > > > + > > > static void > > > common_ring_free(struct rte_mempool *mp) > > > { > > > @@ -130,7 +187,29 @@ static const struct rte_mempool_ops ops_sp_mc = { > > > .get_count = common_ring_get_count, > > > }; > > > > > > +/* ops for mempool with ring in MT_RTS sync mode */ > > > +static const struct rte_mempool_ops ops_mt_rts = { > > > + .name = "ring_mt_rts", > > > + .alloc = rts_ring_alloc, > > > + .free = common_ring_free, > > > + .enqueue = rts_ring_mp_enqueue, > > > + .dequeue = rts_ring_mc_dequeue, > > > + .get_count = common_ring_get_count, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* ops for mempool with ring in MT_HTS sync mode */ > > > +static const struct rte_mempool_ops ops_mt_hts = { > > > + .name = "ring_mt_hts", > > > + .alloc = hts_ring_alloc, > > > + .free = common_ring_free, > > > + .enqueue = hts_ring_mp_enqueue, > > > + .dequeue = hts_ring_mc_dequeue, > > > + .get_count = common_ring_get_count, > > > +}; > > > + > > > MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_mp_mc); > > > MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_sp_sc); > > > MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_mp_sc); > > > MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_sp_mc); > > > +MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_mt_rts); > > > +MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(ops_mt_hts); > > > Not really related to your patch, but I think we need a function to > > dump the name of available mempool ops. We could even add a description. > > The problem we have is that a user does not know on which criteria is > > should use a driver or another (except for platform drivers). > > Agree, it will be usefull. > Though it probably subject for a separate patch. >