From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org,
"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Honnappa Nagarahalli" <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
"Ruifeng Wang" <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
"Jerin Jacob" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"Sunil Kumar Kori" <skori@marvell.com>,
"Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>,
"Joyce Kong" <joyce.kong@arm.com>,
"David Christensen" <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Konstantin Ananyev" <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
"David Hunt" <david.hunt@intel.com>,
"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte optional atomics API
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:47:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230814174706.GB12422@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87AEF@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:00:49AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roretzla@linux.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 11 August 2023 19.32
> >
> > Adapt the EAL public headers to use rte optional atomics API instead of
> > directly using and exposing toolchain specific atomic builtin intrinsics.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
will fix the comments identified.
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h
> > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
> > * The rte_spinlock_t type.
> > */
> > typedef struct __rte_lockable {
> > - volatile int locked; /**< lock status 0 = unlocked, 1 = locked */
> > + volatile int __rte_atomic locked; /**< lock status 0 = unlocked, 1 =
> > locked */
>
> I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> volatile __rte_atomic int locked; /**< lock status [...]
> Alternatively (just mentioning it, I know we don't use this form):
> volatile __rte_atomic(int) locked; /**< lock status [...]
>
> Thinking of where you would put "const" might help.
>
> Maybe your order is also correct, so it is a matter of preference.
so for me what you suggest is the canonical convention for c and i did
initially try to make the change with this convention but ran into
trouble when using the keyword in a context used as a type specifier
and the type was incomplete.
the rte_mcslock is a good example for illustration.
// original struct
typedef struct rte_mcslock {
struct rte_mcslock *next;
...
};
it simply doesn't work / won't compile (at least with clang) which is
what drove me to use the less-often used syntax.
typedef struct rte_mcslock {
_Atomic struct rte_mcslock *next;
...
};
In file included from ../app/test/test_mcslock.c:19:
..\lib\eal\include\rte_mcslock.h:36:2: error: _Atomic cannot be applied
to incomplete type 'struct rte_mcslock'
_Atomic struct rte_mcslock *next;
^
..\lib\eal\include\rte_mcslock.h:35:16: note: definition of 'struct
rte_mcslock' is not complete until the closing '}'
typedef struct rte_mcslock {
^
1 error generated.
so i ended up choosing to use a single syntax by convention consistently
rather than using one for the exceptional case and one everywhere else.
i think (based on our other thread of discussion) i would recommend we
use adopt and require the use of the _Atomic(T) macro to disambiguate it
also has the advantage of not being churned later when we can do c++23.
// using macro
typedef struct rte_mcslock {
_Atomic(struct rte_mcslock *) next;
...
};
this is much easier at a glance to know when the specified type is the T
or the T * similarly in parameter lists it becomes more clear too.
e.g.
void foo(int *v)
that it is either void foo(_Atomic(int) *v) or void foo(_Atomic(int *) v) becomes
much clearer without having to do mental gymnastics.
so i propose we retain
#define __rte_atomic _Atomic
allow it to be used in contexts where we need a type-qualifier.
note:
most of the cases where _Atomic is used as a type-qualifier it
is a red flag that we are sensitive to an implementation detail
of the compiler. in time i hope most of these will go away as we
remove deprecated rte_atomic_xx apis.
but also introduce the following macro
#define RTE_ATOMIC(type) _Atomic(type)
require it be used in the contexts that we are using it as a type-specifier.
if folks agree with this please reply back positively and i'll update
the series. feel free to propose alternate names or whatever, but sooner
than later so i don't have to churn things too much :)
thanks!
>
> The DPDK coding style guidelines doesn't mention where to place "const", but looking at the code, it seems to use "const unsigned int" and "const char *".
we probably should document it as a convention and most likely we should
adopt what is already in use more commonly.
>
> > } rte_spinlock_t;
> >
> > /**
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_mcslock.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_mcslock.h
> > @@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
> > * The rte_mcslock_t type.
> > */
> > typedef struct rte_mcslock {
> > - struct rte_mcslock *next;
> > - int locked; /* 1 if the queue locked, 0 otherwise */
> > + struct rte_mcslock * __rte_atomic next;
>
> Correct, the pointer is atomic, not the struct.
>
> > + int __rte_atomic locked; /* 1 if the queue locked, 0 otherwise */
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> __rte_atomic int locked; /* 1 if the queue locked, 0 otherwise */
>
> > } rte_mcslock_t;
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -101,34 +101,34 @@
> > * A pointer to the node of MCS lock passed in rte_mcslock_lock.
> > */
> > static inline void
> > -rte_mcslock_unlock(rte_mcslock_t **msl, rte_mcslock_t *me)
> > +rte_mcslock_unlock(rte_mcslock_t * __rte_atomic *msl, rte_mcslock_t *
> > __rte_atomic me)
> > {
> > /* Check if there are more nodes in the queue. */
> > - if (likely(__atomic_load_n(&me->next, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) == NULL)) {
> > + if (likely(rte_atomic_load_explicit(&me->next, rte_memory_order_relaxed)
> > == NULL)) {
> > /* No, last member in the queue. */
> > - rte_mcslock_t *save_me = __atomic_load_n(&me, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > + rte_mcslock_t *save_me = rte_atomic_load_explicit(&me,
> > rte_memory_order_relaxed);
> >
> > /* Release the lock by setting it to NULL */
> > - if (likely(__atomic_compare_exchange_n(msl, &save_me, NULL, 0,
> > - __ATOMIC_RELEASE, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)))
> > + if (likely(rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(msl,
> > &save_me, NULL,
> > + rte_memory_order_release,
> > rte_memory_order_relaxed)))
> > return;
> >
> > /* Speculative execution would be allowed to read in the
> > * while-loop first. This has the potential to cause a
> > * deadlock. Need a load barrier.
> > */
> > - __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> > + __rte_atomic_thread_fence(rte_memory_order_acquire);
> > /* More nodes added to the queue by other CPUs.
> > * Wait until the next pointer is set.
> > */
> > - uintptr_t *next;
> > - next = (uintptr_t *)&me->next;
> > + uintptr_t __rte_atomic *next;
> > + next = (uintptr_t __rte_atomic *)&me->next;
>
> This way around, I think:
> __rte_atomic uintptr_t *next;
> next = (__rte_atomic uintptr_t *)&me->next;
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_pflock.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_pflock.h
> > @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@
> > */
> > struct rte_pflock {
> > struct {
> > - uint16_t in;
> > - uint16_t out;
> > + uint16_t __rte_atomic in;
> > + uint16_t __rte_atomic out;
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> __rte_atomic uint16_t in;
> __rte_atomic uint16_t out;
>
> > } rd, wr;
> > };
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_seqcount.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_seqcount.h
> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
> > * The RTE seqcount type.
> > */
> > typedef struct {
> > - uint32_t sn; /**< A sequence number for the protected data. */
> > + uint32_t __rte_atomic sn; /**< A sequence number for the protected data.
> > */
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> __rte_atomic uint32_t sn; /**< A sequence [...]
>
> > } rte_seqcount_t;
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_ticketlock.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_ticketlock.h
> > @@ -30,10 +30,10 @@
> > * The rte_ticketlock_t type.
> > */
> > typedef union {
> > - uint32_t tickets;
> > + uint32_t __rte_atomic tickets;
> > struct {
> > - uint16_t current;
> > - uint16_t next;
> > + uint16_t __rte_atomic current;
> > + uint16_t __rte_atomic next;
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> __rte_atomic uint16_t current;
> __rte_atomic uint16_t next;
>
> > } s;
> > } rte_ticketlock_t;
>
>
>
> > @@ -127,7 +129,7 @@
> >
> > typedef struct {
> > rte_ticketlock_t tl; /**< the actual ticketlock */
> > - int user; /**< core id using lock, TICKET_LOCK_INVALID_ID for unused */
> > + int __rte_atomic user; /**< core id using lock, TICKET_LOCK_INVALID_ID
> > for unused */
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> __rte_atomic int user; /**< core id [...]
>
> > unsigned int count; /**< count of time this lock has been called */
> > } rte_ticketlock_recursive_t;
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_trace_point.h
> > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> > #include <rte_stdatomic.h>
> >
> > /** The tracepoint object. */
> > -typedef uint64_t rte_trace_point_t;
> > +typedef uint64_t __rte_atomic rte_trace_point_t;
>
> Again, I think __rte_atomic should be before the type:
> typedef __rte_atomic uint64_t rte_trace_point_t;
>
> [...]
>
> At the risk of having gone "speed blind" by all the search-replaces along the way...
>
> Reviewed-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-14 17:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-11 1:31 [PATCH 0/6] RFC optional rte optional stdatomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 1:31 ` [PATCH 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 8:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-11 9:42 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 15:54 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 9:04 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 1:31 ` [PATCH 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 1:31 ` [PATCH 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 1:31 ` [PATCH 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 1:32 ` [PATCH 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 1:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 8:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-11 9:51 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 15:56 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 6:37 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] RFC optional rte optional stdatomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 7:06 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 8:00 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-14 17:47 ` Tyler Retzlaff [this message]
2023-08-16 20:13 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 20:32 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 8:05 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 8:07 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 8:11 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-11 17:32 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-14 8:12 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] RFC optional rte optional stdatomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 20:55 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 21:04 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:08 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 21:10 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 19:19 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 0/6] RFC optional rte optional stdatomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 11:45 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-17 19:09 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-18 6:55 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 11:57 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-17 19:14 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-18 7:13 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-22 18:14 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 0/6] optional rte optional stdatomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-21 22:27 ` [PATCH v5 0/6] optional rte optional stdatomics API Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] rte atomics API for optional stdatomic Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] eal: provide rte stdatomics optional atomics API Tyler Retzlaff
2023-09-28 8:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-09-29 8:04 ` David Marchand
2023-09-29 8:54 ` Morten Brørup
2023-09-29 9:02 ` David Marchand
2023-09-29 9:26 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-09-29 9:34 ` David Marchand
2023-09-29 10:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-09-29 11:38 ` David Marchand
2023-09-29 11:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] eal: adapt EAL to present rte " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] eal: add rte atomic qualifier with casts Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] distributor: adapt for EAL optional atomics API changes Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] bpf: " Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 21:00 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] devtools: forbid new direct use of GCC atomic builtins Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-29 15:57 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] rte atomics API for optional stdatomic Tyler Retzlaff
2023-09-29 14:09 ` David Marchand
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=20230814174706.GB12422@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net \
--to=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=joyce.kong@arm.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=skori@marvell.com \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--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).