From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Phil Yang <Phil.Yang@arm.com>,
"rsanford@akamai.com" <rsanford@akamai.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:26:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SA0PR11MB4656F6FC8DC23AAA4017B4C0B9C00@SA0PR11MB4656.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR08MB464664C773AFF2B57C3017A598C00@DBBPR08MB4646.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:16 PM
> To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>; Phil Yang
> <Phil.Yang@arm.com>; rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; jerinj@marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; nd
> <nd@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>;
> nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
> > >
> > > Volatile has no ordering semantics. The rte_timer structure defines
> > > timer status as a volatile variable and uses the rte_r/wmb barrier
> > > to guarantee inter-thread visibility.
> > >
> > > This patch optimized the volatile operation with c11 atomic
> > > operations and one-way barrier to save the performance penalty.
> > > According to the timer_perf_autotest benchmarking results, this
> > > patch can uplift 10%~16% timer appending performance, 3%~20% timer
> > > resetting performance and 45% timer callbacks scheduling performance
> > > on aarch64 and no loss in performance for x86.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > It seems like the consensus is to generally avoid replacing rte_atomic_*
> > interfaces with the GCC builtins directly. In other areas of DPDK that are
> > being patched, are the <std_atomic.h> C11 APIs going to be investigated?
> It
> > seems like that decision will apply here as well.
> Agree. The new APIs are going to be 1 to 1 mapped with the built-in intrinsics
> (the memory orderings used themselves will not change). We should go
> ahead with the review and conclude any issues. Once the decision is made
> on what APIs to use, we can submit the next version using the APIs decided.
>
Thanks, Honnappa.
I have reviewed the memory orderings and I see no issues with them. I do have a question regarding a comment - I'll pose it inline:
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Erik
> >
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 90
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > ---------
> > > lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c index 269e921..be0262d 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > @@ -10,7 +10,6 @@
> > > #include <assert.h>
> > > #include <sys/queue.h>
> > >
> > > -#include <rte_atomic.h>
> > > #include <rte_common.h>
> > > #include <rte_cycles.h>
> > > #include <rte_eal_memconfig.h>
> > > @@ -218,7 +217,7 @@ rte_timer_init(struct rte_timer *tim)
> > >
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -239,9 +238,9 @@ timer_set_config_state(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > >
> > > /* wait that the timer is in correct status before update,
> > > * and mark it as being configured */
> > > - while (success == 0) {
> > > - prev_status.u32 = tim->status.u32;
> > > + prev_status.u32 = __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.u32,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > + while (success == 0) {
> > > /* timer is running on another core
> > > * or ready to run on local core, exit
> > > */
> > > @@ -258,9 +257,20 @@ timer_set_config_state(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > > * mark it atomically as being configured */
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_CONFIG;
> > > status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > - success = rte_atomic32_cmpset(&tim->status.u32,
> > > - prev_status.u32,
> > > - status.u32);
> > > + /* If status is observed as RTE_TIMER_CONFIG earlier,
> > > + * that's not going to cause any issues because the
> > > + * pattern is read for status then read the other members.
I don't follow the above comment. What is meant by "earlier"?
Thanks,
Erik
> > > + * In one of the callers to timer_set_config_state
> > > + * (the __rte_timer_reset) we set other members to the
> > > + * structure (period, expire, f, arg) we want these
> > > + * changes to be observed after our change to status.
> > > + * So we need __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE here.
> > > + */
> > > + success = __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&tim-
> > > >status.u32,
> > > + &prev_status.u32,
> > > + status.u32, 0,
> > > + __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > }
> > >
> > > ret_prev_status->u32 = prev_status.u32; @@ -279,20 +289,27 @@
> > > timer_set_running_state(struct rte_timer *tim)
> > >
> > > /* wait that the timer is in correct status before update,
> > > * and mark it as running */
> > > - while (success == 0) {
> > > - prev_status.u32 = tim->status.u32;
> > > + prev_status.u32 = __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.u32,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > + while (success == 0) {
> > > /* timer is not pending anymore */
> > > if (prev_status.state != RTE_TIMER_PENDING)
> > > return -1;
> > >
> > > /* here, we know that timer is stopped or pending,
> > > - * mark it atomically as being configured */
> > > + * mark it atomically as being running
> > > + */
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_RUNNING;
> > > status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > - success = rte_atomic32_cmpset(&tim->status.u32,
> > > - prev_status.u32,
> > > - status.u32);
> > > + /* RUNNING states are acting as locked states. If the
> > > + * timer is in RUNNING state, the state cannot be changed
> > > + * by other threads. So, we should use ACQUIRE here.
> > > + */
> > > + success = __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&tim-
> > > >status.u32,
> > > + &prev_status.u32,
> > > + status.u32, 0,
> > > + __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -520,10 +537,12 @@ __rte_timer_reset(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > > uint64_t expire,
> > >
> > > /* update state: as we are in CONFIG state, only us can modify
> > > * the state so we don't need to use cmpset() here */
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > status.owner = (int16_t)tim_lcore;
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory operations above
> > > + * the status update are observed before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > >
> > > if (tim_lcore != lcore_id || !local_is_locked)
> > > rte_spinlock_unlock(&priv_timer[tim_lcore].list_lock);
> > > @@ -600,10 +619,12 @@ __rte_timer_stop(struct rte_timer *tim, int
> > > local_is_locked,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* mark timer as stopped */
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory operations above
> > > + * the status update are observed before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > @@ -637,7 +658,8 @@ rte_timer_stop_sync(struct rte_timer *tim) int
> > > rte_timer_pending(struct rte_timer *tim) {
> > > - return tim->status.state == RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > + return __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.state,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELAXED) ==
> > > RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* must be called periodically, run all timer that expired */ @@
> > > -739,8
> > > +761,12 @@ __rte_timer_manage(struct rte_timer_data *timer_data)
> > > /* remove from done list and mark timer as stopped
> > */
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > + * operations above the status update are observed
> > > + * before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > }
> > > else {
> > > /* keep it in list and mark timer as pending */ @@ -
> > > 748,8 +774,12 @@ __rte_timer_manage(struct rte_timer_data
> *timer_data)
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > __TIMER_STAT_ADD(priv_timer, pending, 1);
> > > status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > + * operations above the status update are observed
> > > + * before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > __rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period,
> > > tim->period, lcore_id, tim->f, tim->arg, 1,
> > > timer_data);
> > > @@ -919,8 +949,12 @@ rte_timer_alt_manage(uint32_t timer_data_id,
> > > /* remove from done list and mark timer as stopped
> > */
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > + * operations above the status update are observed
> > > + * before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > } else {
> > > /* keep it in list and mark timer as pending */
> > > rte_spinlock_lock(
> > > @@ -928,8 +962,12 @@ rte_timer_alt_manage(uint32_t timer_data_id,
> > > status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > __TIMER_STAT_ADD(data->priv_timer, pending, 1);
> > > status.owner = (int16_t)this_lcore;
> > > - rte_wmb();
> > > - tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > + /* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > + * operations above the status update are observed
> > > + * before the update by all threads
> > > + */
> > > + __atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > __rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period,
> > > tim->period, this_lcore, tim->f, tim->arg, 1,
> > > data);
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h index c6b3d45..df533fa 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct rte_timer {
> > > uint64_t expire; /**< Time when timer expire. */
> > > struct rte_timer *sl_next[MAX_SKIPLIST_DEPTH];
> > > - volatile union rte_timer_status status; /**< Status of timer. */
> > > + union rte_timer_status status; /**< Status of timer. */
> > > uint64_t period; /**< Period of timer (0 if not periodic). */
> > > rte_timer_cb_t f; /**< Callback function. */
> > > void *arg; /**< Argument to callback function. */
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-08 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-24 6:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/timer: protect timer subsystem initialized with lock Phil Yang
2020-02-24 6:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update Phil Yang
2020-04-08 10:23 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-08 21:10 ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-08 21:16 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-04-08 21:26 ` Carrillo, Erik G [this message]
2020-04-08 21:56 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-04-09 19:29 ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-10 4:39 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-20 16:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Phil Yang
2020-04-23 20:06 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-04-24 1:26 ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-24 7:27 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-24 7:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Phil Yang
2020-04-25 17:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-26 7:36 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-26 12:18 ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-26 14:20 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-26 19:30 ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-26 14:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Phil Yang
2020-04-26 20:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-25 14:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-25 15:51 ` Phil Yang
2020-04-25 16:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-25 22:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/timer: protect timer subsystem initialized with lock Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-25 17:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon
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=SA0PR11MB4656F6FC8DC23AAA4017B4C0B9C00@SA0PR11MB4656.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=erik.g.carrillo@intel.com \
--cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Phil.Yang@arm.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=rsanford@akamai.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).