From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
"Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>,
"Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
"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 3/4] hash: fix rw concurrency while moving keys
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 03:54:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR08MB3672C8E2CC634B6BC95509BD98EA0@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR08MB36725E31D7C4AB808DF13FF798E90@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
>
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Van Haaren, Harry
> > >> > > > > /**
> > >> > > > > * Add a key to an existing hash table.
> > >> > > > >@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ rte_hash_add_key(const struct rte_hash
> > >> > > > >*h, const void
> > >> > > *key);
> > >> > > > > * array of user data. This value is unique for this key.
> > >> > > > > */
> > >> > > > > int32_t
> > >> > > > >-rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const
> > >> > > > >void *key,
> > >> > > hash_sig_t sig);
> > >> > > > >+rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(struct rte_hash *h, const void
> > >> > > > >+*key,
> > >> > > hash_sig_t sig);
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > /
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think the above changes will break ABI by changing the
> > >> > > > parameter
> > >> type?
> > >> > > Other people may know better on this.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Just removing a const should not change the ABI, I believe,
> > >> > > since the const is just advisory hint to the compiler. Actual
> > >> > > parameter size and count remains unchanged so I don't believe there
> is an issue.
> > >> > > [ABI experts, please correct me if I'm wrong on this]
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > [Certainly no ABI expert, but...]
> > >> >
> > >> > I think this is an API break, not ABI break.
> > >> >
> > >> > Given application code as follows, it will fail to compile - even
> > >> > though
> > >> running
> > >> > the new code as a .so wouldn't cause any issues (AFAIK).
> > >> >
> > >> > void do_hash_stuff(const struct rte_hash *h, ...) {
> > >> > /* parameter passed in is const, but updated function
> > >> > prototype is
> > >> non-
> > >> > const */
> > >> > rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(h, ...); }
> > >> >
> > >> > This means that we can't recompile apps against latest patch
> > >> > without application code changes, if the app was passing a const
> > >> > rte_hash struct
> > >> as
> > >> > the first parameter.
> > >> >
> > >> Agree. Do we need to do anything for this?
> > >
> > >I think we should try to avoid breaking API wherever possible.
> > >If we must, then I suppose we could follow the ABI process of a
> > >deprecation notice.
> > >
> > >From my reading of the versioning docs, it doesn't document this case:
> > >https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/versioning.html
> > >
> > >I don't recall a similar situation in DPDK previously - so I suggest
> > >you ask Tech board for input here.
> > >
> > >Hope that helps! -Harry
> > [Wang, Yipeng]
> > Honnappa, how about use a pointer to the counter in the rte_hash
> > struct instead of the counter? Will this avoid API change?
> I think it defeats the purpose of 'const' parameter to the API and provides
> incorrect information to the user.
Yipeng, I think I have misunderstood your comment. I believe you meant; we could allocate memory to the counter and store the pointer in the structure. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This could be a solution, though it will be another cache line access. It might be ok given that it is a single cache line for entire hash table.
> IMO, DPDK should have guidelines on how to handle the API compatibility
> breaks. I will send an email to tech board on this.
> We can also solve this by having counters on the bucket. I was planning to do
> this little bit later. I will look at the effort involved and may be do it now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-04 3:54 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 [this message]
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
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=AM6PR08MB3672C8E2CC634B6BC95509BD98EA0@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=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--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).