Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 10/12] service: identify service running on another core correctly

["Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>]

> From: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:18 AM
> To: thomas@monjalon.net; Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
> stephen@networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; jerinj@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com; gavin.hu@arm.com; ruifeng.wang@arm.com;
> joyce.kong@arm.com; nd@arm.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v3 10/12] service: identify service running on another core
> correctly
> 
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> 
> The logic to identify if the MT unsafe service is running on another
> core can return -EBUSY spuriously. In such cases, running the service
> becomes costlier than using atomic operations. Assume that the
> application passes the right parameters and reduces the number of
> instructions for all cases.
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>

Is this fixing broken functionality, or does it aim to only "optimize"?
Lack of "fixes" tag suggests optimization.

I'm cautious about the commit phrase "Assume that the application ...",
if the code was previously checking things, we must not stop checking
them now, this may introduce race-conditions in existing applications?

It seems like the "serialize_mt_unsafe" branch is being pushed
further down the callgraph, and instead of branching over atomics
this patch forces always executing 2 atomics?

This feels like too specific an optimization/tradeoff, without data to
backup that there are no regressions on any DPDK supported platforms.

DPDK today doesn't have a micro-benchmark to gather such perf data, 
but I would welcome one and we can have a data-driven decision.

Hope this point-of-view makes sense, -Harry

> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> index 32a2f8a..0843c3c 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ service_runner_do_callback(struct rte_service_spec_impl
> *s,
>  /* Expects the service 's' is valid. */
>  static int32_t
>  service_run(uint32_t i, struct core_state *cs, uint64_t service_mask,
> -	    struct rte_service_spec_impl *s)
> +	    struct rte_service_spec_impl *s, uint32_t serialize_mt_unsafe)
>  {
>  	if (!s)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ service_run(uint32_t i, struct core_state *cs, uint64_t
> service_mask,
> 
>  	cs->service_active_on_lcore[i] = 1;
> 
> -	if (service_mt_safe(s) == 0) {
> +	if ((service_mt_safe(s) == 0) && (serialize_mt_unsafe == 1)) {
>  		if (!rte_atomic32_cmpset((uint32_t *)&s->execute_lock, 0, 1))
>  			return -EBUSY;
> 
> @@ -412,24 +412,14 @@ rte_service_run_iter_on_app_lcore(uint32_t id, uint32_t
> serialize_mt_unsafe)
> 
>  	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> 
> -	/* Atomically add this core to the mapped cores first, then examine if
> -	 * we can run the service. This avoids a race condition between
> -	 * checking the value, and atomically adding to the mapped count.
> +	/* Increment num_mapped_cores to indicate that the service
> +	 * is running on a core.
>  	 */
> -	if (serialize_mt_unsafe)
> -		rte_atomic32_inc(&s->num_mapped_cores);
> +	rte_atomic32_inc(&s->num_mapped_cores);
> 
> -	if (service_mt_safe(s) == 0 &&
> -			rte_atomic32_read(&s->num_mapped_cores) > 1) {
> -		if (serialize_mt_unsafe)
> -			rte_atomic32_dec(&s->num_mapped_cores);
> -		return -EBUSY;
> -	}
> -
> -	int ret = service_run(id, cs, UINT64_MAX, s);
> +	int ret = service_run(id, cs, UINT64_MAX, s, serialize_mt_unsafe);
> 
> -	if (serialize_mt_unsafe)
> -		rte_atomic32_dec(&s->num_mapped_cores);
> +	rte_atomic32_dec(&s->num_mapped_cores);
> 
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -449,7 +439,7 @@ service_runner_func(void *arg)
>  			if (!service_valid(i))
>  				continue;
>  			/* return value ignored as no change to code flow */
> -			service_run(i, cs, service_mask, service_get(i));
> +			service_run(i, cs, service_mask, service_get(i), 1);
>  		}
> 
>  		cs->loops++;
> --
> 2.7.4