On 2023/8/18 21:59, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
> *From:* Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2023 12:57 AM
> *To:* Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Stephen 
> Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> *Cc:* dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; 
> viacheslavo@nvidia.com; Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>; 
> Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> *Subject:* Re: MLX5 PMD access ring library private data
>
> On 2023/8/18 12:30, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>
>         From: Jack Min<jackmin@nvidia.com>  <mailto:jackmin@nvidia.com>
>
>         Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:32 PM
>
>         To: Stephen Hemminger<stephen@networkplumber.org>  <mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org>; Honnappa
>
>         Nagarahalli<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>  <mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
>
>         Cc:dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad<matan@nvidia.com>  <mailto:matan@nvidia.com>;
>
>         viacheslavo@nvidia.com; Tyler Retzlaff<roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>  <mailto:roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>;
>
>         Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage<wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>  <mailto:wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>; nd
>
>         <nd@arm.com>  <mailto:nd@arm.com>
>
>         Subject: Re: MLX5 PMD access ring library private data
>
>         On 2023/8/17 22:06, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>             On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 05:06:20 +0000
>
>             Honnappa Nagarahalli<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>  <mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>  wrote:
>
>                 Hi Matan, Viacheslav,
>
>                        Tyler pointed out that the function
>
>         __mlx5_hws_cnt_pool_enqueue_revert is accessing the ring private structure
>
>         members (prod.head and prod.tail) directly. Even though ' struct rte_ring' is a
>
>         public structure (mainly because the library provides inline functions), the
>
>         structure members are considered private to the ring library. So, this needs to
>
>         be corrected.
>
>                 It looks like the function __mlx5_hws_cnt_pool_enqueue_revert is trying
>
>         to revert things that were enqueued. It is not clear to me why this
>
>         functionality is required. Can you provide the use case for this? We can
>
>         discuss possible solutions.
>
>             How can reverting be thread safe? Consumer could have already looked at
>
>         them?
>
>         Hey,
>
>         In our case, this ring is SC/SP, only accessed by one thread
>
>         (enqueue/dequeue/revert).
>
>     You could implement a more simpler and more efficient (For ex: such an implementation would not need any atomic operations, would require less number of cache lines) ring for this.
>
>     Is this function being used in the dataplane?
>
> Yes,  we can have our own version of ring (no atomic operations) but 
> basic operation are still as same as rte_ring.
>
> Since rte ring has been well-designed and tested sufficiently, so 
> there is no strong reason to re-write a new simple version of it until 
> today :)
>
>         The scenario we have "revert" is:
>
>            We use ring to manager our HW objects (counter in this case) and for each
>
>         core (thread) has "cache" (a SC/SP ring) for sake of performance.
>
>         1. Get objects from "cache" firstly, if cache is empty, we fetch a bulk of free
>
>         objects from global ring into cache.
>
>         2. Put (free) objects also into "cache" firstly, if cache is full, we flush a bulk of
>
>         objects into global ring in order to make some rooms in cache.
>
>         However, this HW object cannot be immediately reused after free. It needs
>
>         time to be reset and then can be used again.
>
>         So when we flush cache, we want to keep the first enqueued objects still stay
>
>         there because they have more chance already be reset than the latest
>
>         enqueued objects.
>
>         Only flush recently enqueued objects back into global ring, act as "LIFO"
>
>         behavior.
>
>         This is why we require "revert" enqueued objects.
>
>     You could use 'rte_ring_free_count' API before you enqueue to check for available space.
>
> Only when cache is full (rte_ring_free_count() is zero), we revert X 
> objects.
>
> If there is still  one free slot we will not trigger revert (flush).
>
> */[Honnappa]/* May be I was not clear in my recommendation. What I am 
> saying is, you could call ‘rte_ring_free_count’ to check if you have 
> enough space on the cache ring. If there is not enough space you can 
> enqueue the new objects on the global ring. Pseudo code below:
>
> If (rte_ring_free_count(cache_ring) > n) {
>
>              <enqueue n objects on cache ring>
>
> } else {
>
>              <enqueue n objects on global ring>
>
> }
>
Hey,

Then next n objects will still enqueue into global ring, not into cache 
, right? ( we enqueue nnnn objects continually)

Our requirement is like this:

if (rte_ring_free_count(cache_ring) > 0) {

          <enqueue this object on cache ring>

} else { /* cache is full */

       <enqueue this object into global ring>

      <move the latest n objects into global ring too>

}

It's not about if this enqueue on cache can success or not.

It's about we need "free" more room in advance so next n objects can 
enqueue into cache.

-Jack

>         -Jack
>