From: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>, bruce.richardson@intel.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com, nd@arm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v1604
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:50:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1e7a999-bc0c-e228-b764-d4c31496b04b@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190605055451.30473-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
Hi Wang,
On 05/06/2019 06:54, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> When a tbl8 group is getting attached to a tbl24 entry, lookup
> might fail even though the entry is configured in the table.
>
> For ex: consider a LPM table configured with 10.10.10.1/24.
> When a new entry 10.10.10.32/28 is being added, a new tbl8
> group is allocated and tbl24 entry is changed to point to
> the tbl8 group. If the tbl24 entry is written without the tbl8
> group entries updated, a lookup on 10.10.10.9 will return
> failure.
>
> Correct memory orderings are required to ensure that the
> store to tbl24 does not happen before the stores to tbl8 group
> entries complete.
>
> The orderings have impact on LPM performance test.
> On Arm A72 platform, delete operation has 2.7% degradation, while
> add / lookup has no notable performance change.
> On x86 E5 platform, add operation has 4.3% degradation, delete
> operation has 2.2% - 10.2% degradation, lookup has no performance
> change.
I think it is possible to avoid add/del performance degradation
1. Explicitly mark struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry 4-byte aligned
2. Cast value to uint32_t (uint16_t for 2.0 version) on memory write
3. Use rte_wmb() after memory write
>
> Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> index 6b7b28a2e..6ec450a08 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> @@ -806,7 +806,8 @@ add_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth,
> /* Setting tbl24 entry in one go to avoid race
> * conditions
> */
> - lpm->tbl24[i] = new_tbl24_entry;
> + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl24[i], &new_tbl24_entry,
> + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>
> continue;
> }
> @@ -1017,7 +1018,11 @@ add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth,
> .depth = 0,
> };
>
> - lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index] = new_tbl24_entry;
> + /* The tbl24 entry must be written only after the
> + * tbl8 entries are written.
> + */
> + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index], &new_tbl24_entry,
> + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>
> } /* If valid entry but not extended calculate the index into Table8. */
> else if (lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].valid_group == 0) {
> @@ -1063,7 +1068,11 @@ add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth,
> .depth = 0,
> };
>
> - lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index] = new_tbl24_entry;
> + /* The tbl24 entry must be written only after the
> + * tbl8 entries are written.
> + */
> + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index], &new_tbl24_entry,
> + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>
> } else { /*
> * If it is valid, extended entry calculate the index into tbl8.
> @@ -1391,6 +1400,7 @@ delete_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked,
> /* Calculate the range and index into Table24. */
> tbl24_range = depth_to_range(depth);
> tbl24_index = (ip_masked >> 8);
> + struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry zero_tbl24_entry = {0};
>
> /*
> * Firstly check the sub_rule_index. A -1 indicates no replacement rule
> @@ -1405,7 +1415,8 @@ delete_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked,
>
> if (lpm->tbl24[i].valid_group == 0 &&
> lpm->tbl24[i].depth <= depth) {
> - lpm->tbl24[i].valid = INVALID;
> + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl24[i],
> + &zero_tbl24_entry, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> } else if (lpm->tbl24[i].valid_group == 1) {
> /*
> * If TBL24 entry is extended, then there has
> @@ -1450,7 +1461,8 @@ delete_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked,
>
> if (lpm->tbl24[i].valid_group == 0 &&
> lpm->tbl24[i].depth <= depth) {
> - lpm->tbl24[i] = new_tbl24_entry;
> + __atomic_store(&lpm->tbl24[i], &new_tbl24_entry,
> + __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> } else if (lpm->tbl24[i].valid_group == 1) {
> /*
> * If TBL24 entry is extended, then there has
> @@ -1713,8 +1725,11 @@ delete_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked,
> tbl8_recycle_index = tbl8_recycle_check_v1604(lpm->tbl8, tbl8_group_start);
>
> if (tbl8_recycle_index == -EINVAL) {
> - /* Set tbl24 before freeing tbl8 to avoid race condition. */
> + /* Set tbl24 before freeing tbl8 to avoid race condition.
> + * Prevent the free of the tbl8 group from hoisting.
> + */
> lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index].valid = 0;
> + __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> tbl8_free_v1604(lpm->tbl8, tbl8_group_start);
> } else if (tbl8_recycle_index > -1) {
> /* Update tbl24 entry. */
> @@ -1725,8 +1740,11 @@ delete_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked,
> .depth = lpm->tbl8[tbl8_recycle_index].depth,
> };
>
> - /* Set tbl24 before freeing tbl8 to avoid race condition. */
> + /* Set tbl24 before freeing tbl8 to avoid race condition.
> + * Prevent the free of the tbl8 group from hoisting.
> + */
> lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index] = new_tbl24_entry;
> + __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> tbl8_free_v1604(lpm->tbl8, tbl8_group_start);
> }
> #undef group_idx
> diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h
> index b886f54b4..6f5704c5c 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h
> @@ -354,6 +354,10 @@ rte_lpm_lookup(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint32_t *next_hop)
> ptbl = (const uint32_t *)(&lpm->tbl24[tbl24_index]);
> tbl_entry = *ptbl;
>
> + /* Memory ordering is not required in lookup. Because dataflow
> + * dependency exists, compiler or HW won't be able to re-order
> + * the operations.
> + */
> /* Copy tbl8 entry (only if needed) */
> if (unlikely((tbl_entry & RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK) ==
> RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK)) {
--
Regards,
Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-05 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-05 5:54 Ruifeng Wang
2019-06-05 5:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v20 Ruifeng Wang
2019-06-05 10:50 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir [this message]
2019-06-05 14:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v1604 Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-06-05 19:23 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-06-10 15:22 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-06-17 15:27 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-06-17 15:33 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/6] LPM4 memory ordering changes Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/6] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary functions Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/6] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v1604 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/6] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v20 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] lib/lpm: use atomic store to avoid partial update Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/6] lib/lpm: data update optimization for v1604 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 20:08 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-07-12 3:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/6] lib/lpm: data update optimization for v20 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-12 20:09 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-07-18 6:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] LPM4 memory ordering changes Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-18 6:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/4] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary functions Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-18 6:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/4] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v1604 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-18 6:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/4] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v20 Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-18 6:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/4] lib/lpm: use atomic store to avoid partial update Ruifeng Wang
2019-07-18 14:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/4] LPM4 memory ordering changes Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-07-19 10:37 ` 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=e1e7a999-bc0c-e228-b764-d4c31496b04b@intel.com \
--to=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
/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).