Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] hash: add new toeplitz hash implementation

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:00 +0000
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:30:02 +0100
> > Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > +			m[i * 8 + j] = (rss_key[i] << j)|
> > > +				(uint8_t)((uint16_t)(rss_key[i + 1]) >>
> > > +				(8 - j));
> > > +		}  
> > 
> > This ends up being harder than necessary to read. Maybe split into
> > multiple statements and/or use temporary variable.
> >   
> > > +RTE_INIT(rte_thash_gfni_init)
> > > +{
> > > +	rte_thash_gfni_supported = 0;  
> > 
> > Not necessary in C globals are initialized to zero by default.
> > 
> > By removing that the constructor can be totally behind #ifdef
> >   
> > > +__rte_internal
> > > +static inline __m512i
> > > +__rte_thash_gfni(const uint64_t *mtrx, const uint8_t *tuple,
> > > +	const uint8_t *secondary_tuple, int len)
> > > +{
> > > +	__m512i permute_idx = _mm512_set_epi8(7, 6, 5, 4, 7, 6, 5, 4,
> > > +						6, 5, 4, 3, 6, 5, 4, 3,
> > > +						5, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 3, 2,
> > > +						4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1,
> > > +						3, 2, 1, 0, 3, 2, 1, 0,
> > > +						2, 1, 0, -1, 2, 1, 0, -1,
> > > +						1, 0, -1, -2, 1, 0, -1, -2,
> > > +						0, -1, -2, -3, 0, -1, -2, -3);  
> > 
> > NAK
> > 
> > Please don't put the implementation in an inline. This makes it harder
> > to support (API/ABI) and blocks other architectures from implementing
> > same thing with different instructions.  
> 
> I don't really understand your reasoning here.
> rte_thash_gfni.h is an arch-specific header, which provides
> arch-specific optimizations for RSS hash calculation
> (Vladimir pls correct me if I am wrong here).

Ok, but rte_thash_gfni.h is included on all architectures.

> We do have dozens of inline functions that do use arch-specific instructions (both x86 and arm)
> for different purposes:
> sync primitives, memory-ordering, cache manipulations, LPM lookup, TSX, power-saving, etc.
> That's a usual trade-off taken for performance reasons, when extra function call
> costs too much comparing to the operation itself.
> Why it suddenly became a problem for that particular case and how exactly it blocks other architectures?
> Also I don't understand how it makes things harder in terms of API/ABI stability.
> As I can see this patch doesn't introduce any public structs/unions.
> All functions take as arguments just raw data buffers and length.
> To summarize - in general, I don't see any good reason why this patch shouldn't be allowed.
> Konstantin

The comments about rte_thash_gfni_supported initialization still apply.
Why not:

#ifdef __GFNI__
RTE_INIT(rte_thash_gfni_init)
{
	if (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_GFNI))
		rte_thash_gfni_supported = 1;
}
#endif