From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
To: "Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>,
Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@arm.com>,
Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
"Gobriel, Sameh" <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] hash: enable lock-free reader-writer concurrency
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:24:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR08MB367299302BEB194F0B2CEE8298E10@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D2C4A16CA39F7F4E8E384D204491D7A6614EA2F7@FMSMSX151.amr.corp.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> >Add the flag to enable reader-writer concurrency during run time.
> >> >The rte_hash_del_xxx APIs do not free the keystore element when this
> >> >flag is enabled. Hence a new API, rte_hash_free_key_with_position,
> >> >to free the key store element is added.
> >> >
> >> >+/** Flag to support lock free reader writer concurrency */ #define
> >> >+RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF 0x08
> >> [Wang, Yipeng] It would be good to indicate that the lockless
> >> implementation works for single writer multiple readers.
> >Multi-writers are supported by using the rw-lock or transactional
> >memory. Essentially, we still have single writer. This patch works fine with
> multi-writer as defined by ' MULTI_WRITER_ADD' flag. I have tested it as well.
> I will enable this test case in V2.
> >
> >> Also, if people use a mix of the flags for example set both
> >> multiwriter and LF flags, then I guess either we need to return an
> >> error or maybe multiwriter should have higher priority. Currently the
> >> RW_CONCURRENCY will assume MULTI_WRITER_ADD I think.
> >As mentioned above, multi-writer and LF combination is supported. Yes,
> RW_CONCURRENCY currently assumes MULTI_WRITER_ADD.
> >I think we should separate them.
> [Wang, Yipeng] It would be great if you could just add a little bit more
> comments to both of the flags to be more specific on what Read write
> concurrency mean in both cases, just in case users got confused.
> You may also want to update the documentation later
> (https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/hash_lib.html).
I will add the documentation once the patch is accepted.
>
> >
> >> >+
> >> > /** Signature of key that is stored internally. */ typedef uint32_t
> >> > hash_sig_t;
> >> >
> >> >@@ -143,6 +148,11 @@ rte_hash_count(const struct rte_hash *h);
> >> > * and should only be called from one thread by default.
> >> > * Thread safety can be enabled by setting flag during
> >> > * table creation.
> >> >+ * When lock free reader writer concurrency is enabled,
> >> >+ * if this API is called to update an existing entry,
> >> >+ * the application should free any memory allocated for
> >> >+ * previous 'data' only after all the readers have stopped
> >> >+ * using previous 'data'.
> >> [Wang, Yipeng] Could you be more specific on this description?
> >> When add_key API is called, the users do not know if it will update
> >> an existing entry or inserting a new one, do they?
> >I think, it will depend on the application. The applications I have
> >worked on so far, added a hash entry as a result of receiving an event
> >and updated it on receiving another event. I can change the comments to
> indicate that the applications need to be aware of add/update operations.
> [Wang, Yipeng] Even if for current rte_hash, after update, the application may
> still use the old data. It is the upper level application's Responsibility. How is it
> specific to lock free implementation?
I agree. I think it makes sense to keep this warning, but make it not specific to lock-free algorithm. I will make this change in V3.
> >
> >> > rte_hash_del_key(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key); @@
> >> > -251,6
> >> >+274,12 @@ rte_hash_del_key(const struct rte_hash *h, const void
> >> >+*key);
> >> > * and should only be called from one thread by default.
> >> > * Thread safety can be enabled by setting flag during
> >> > * table creation.
> >> >+ * If lock free reader writer concurrency is enabled,
> >> >+ * the hash library's internal memory for the deleted
> >> >+ * key is not freed. It should be freed by calling
> >> >+ * rte_hash_free_key_with_position API after all
> >> >+ * the readers have stopped using the hash entry
> >> >+ * corresponding to this key.
> >> > *
> >> > * @param h
> >> > * Hash table to remove the key from.
> >> >@@ -264,6 +293,8 @@ rte_hash_del_key(const struct rte_hash *h, const
> >> void *key);
> >> > * - A positive value that can be used by the caller as an offset into an
> >> > * array of user data. This value is unique for this key, and is the same
> >> > * value that was returned when the key was added.
> >> >+ * When lock free concurrency is enabled, this value should be used
> >> >+ * while calling the rte_hash_free_key_with_position API.
> >> > */
> >> > int32_t
> >> > rte_hash_del_key_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void
> >> >*key, hash_sig_t sig); @@ -290,6 +321,30 @@
> >> rte_hash_get_key_with_position(const struct rte_hash *h, const
> >> int32_t position,
> >> > void **key);
> >> >
> >> [Wang, Yipeng] If possible, how about having a new delete function
> >> instead of modifying the current one?
> >> I think it does not need to be tied with the lockless implementation,
> >> it is orthogonal to multi-threading implementation.
> >> people using locks may still want this new deletion behavior.
> >> If people want old behavior, they can call current API, otherwise
> >> they can call the new deletion function, followed by
> Rte_hash_free_key_with_position later.
> >I like the terms 'delete' and 'free'. I am finding it hard to come up
> >with a good name for the API. It will be on the lines of
> 'rte_hash_del_key_with_hash_no_free' - I do not like the name much.
> >Instead, we could have a configuration flag for the hash table,
> >'RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_FREE_MEM_ON_DEL'. If this is enabled,
> 'rte_hash_del_...' APIs will free the key store index and any internal memory.
> Enabling lock-free RW concurrency will enable this flag.
> >User can enable this flag explicitly while not using lock-free RW concurrency
> as well.
> [Wang, Yipeng] I am OK with either way. For flag, maybe we should call it
> RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RECYCLE _ON_DEL, since The key-data pair index is
> recycled to be more specific. User should know that the index might be re-
> used by another write.
> BTW, current flag is only 8 bit, as we specify more and more flags, maybe we
> should announce an API change to change it to 32bit for next release.
I agree. Do you know how to do this? Do you want to take care of this?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-11 5:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-06 17:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Address reader-writer concurrency in rte_hash Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-06 17:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] hash: correct key store element alignment Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-27 23:58 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-06 17:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] hash: add memory ordering to avoid race conditions Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-28 0:43 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-30 22:20 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-01 22:41 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-01 10:42 ` Ola Liljedahl
2018-10-02 1:52 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-06 17:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] hash: fix rw concurrency while moving keys Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-28 1:00 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-28 8:26 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-09-28 8:55 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2018-09-30 22:33 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-02 13:17 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2018-10-02 23:58 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-03 17:32 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-03 17:56 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-03 23:05 ` Ola Liljedahl
2018-10-04 3:32 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-04 3:54 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-04 19:16 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-30 23:05 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-01 22:56 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-03 0:16 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-03 17:39 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-06 17:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] hash: enable lock-free reader-writer concurrency Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-28 1:33 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-01 4:11 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-01 23:54 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-10-11 5:24 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli [this message]
2018-09-14 21:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Address reader-writer concurrency in rte_hash Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-26 14:36 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-09-27 23:45 ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-09-28 21:11 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-02 0:30 ` Wang, Yipeng1
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=AM6PR08MB367299302BEB194F0B2CEE8298E10@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
--cc=Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com \
--cc=Steve.Capper@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=sameh.gobriel@intel.com \
--cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.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).