From: Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"roretzla@linux.microsoft.com" <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"harry.van.haaren@intel.com" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/8] test/mcslock: use compiler atomics for lcores sync
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:19:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AS8PR08MB69357E192881A89EC8A45DB492EB9@AS8PR08MB6935.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YQEp3g2l8LmVCugx@platinum>
Hi Olivier,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 5:57 PM
> To: Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; david.marchand@redhat.com;
> roretzla@linux.microsoft.com; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru; harry.van.haaren@intel.com; Honnappa
> Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] test/mcslock: use compiler atomics for lcores
> sync
>
> Hi Joyce,
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:51:21PM -0500, Joyce Kong wrote:
> > Convert rte_atomic usages to compiler atomic built-ins for lcores sync
> > in mcslock testcases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > ---
> > app/test/test_mcslock.c | 14 ++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_mcslock.c b/app/test/test_mcslock.c index
> > 80eaecc90a..52e45e7e2a 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_mcslock.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_mcslock.c
> > @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
> > #include <rte_lcore.h>
> > #include <rte_cycles.h>
> > #include <rte_mcslock.h>
> > -#include <rte_atomic.h>
> >
> > #include "test.h"
> >
> > @@ -43,7 +42,7 @@ rte_mcslock_t *p_ml_perf;
> >
> > static unsigned int count;
> >
> > -static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
> > +static uint32_t synchro;
> >
> > static int
> > test_mcslock_per_core(__rte_unused void *arg) @@ -76,8 +75,7 @@
> > load_loop_fn(void *func_param)
> > rte_mcslock_t ml_perf_me;
> >
> > /* wait synchro */
> > - while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
> > - ;
> > + rte_wait_until_equal_32(&synchro, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> >
> > begin = rte_get_timer_cycles();
> > while (lcount < MAX_LOOP) {
> > @@ -102,15 +100,15 @@ test_mcslock_perf(void)
> > const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
> >
> > printf("\nTest with no lock on single core...\n");
> > - rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 1);
> > + __atomic_store_n(&synchro, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > load_loop_fn(&lock);
> > printf("Core [%u] Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n",
> > lcore, time_count[lcore]);
> > memset(time_count, 0, sizeof(time_count));
> >
> > printf("\nTest with lock on single core...\n");
> > + __atomic_store_n(&synchro, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > lock = 1;
> > - rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 1);
>
> nit: is there a reason for moving this line?
I meant to use __atomic_store_n() instead of rte_atomic32_set() to set synchro,
but put the operation to the line up 'lock=1' by mistake, will change it.
> >
> > load_loop_fn(&lock);
> > printf("Core [%u] Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n",
> > lcore, time_count[lcore]);
> > @@ -118,11 +116,11 @@ test_mcslock_perf(void)
> >
> > printf("\nTest with lock on %u cores...\n", (rte_lcore_count()));
> >
> > - rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 0);
> > + __atomic_store_n(&synchro, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > rte_eal_mp_remote_launch(load_loop_fn, &lock, SKIP_MAIN);
> >
> > /* start synchro and launch test on main */
> > - rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 1);
> > + __atomic_store_n(&synchro, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > load_loop_fn(&lock);
>
> I have a more general question. Please forgive my ignorance about the
> C++11 atomic builtins and memory model. Both gcc manual and C11
> standard
> are not that easy to understand :)
>
> In all the patches of this patchset, __ATOMIC_RELAXED is used. My
> understanding is that it does not add any inter-thread ordering constraint. I
> suppose that in this particular case, we rely on the call to
> rte_eal_mp_remote_launch() being a compiler barrier, and the function itself
> to be a memory barrier. This ensures that worker threads sees synchro=0
> until it is set to 1 by the master.
> Is it correct?
>
Yes, you are right. __ATOMIC_RELAXED would introduce no barrier, and the worker
threads would sync with master thread by 'synchro'.
> What is the reason for using the atomic API here? Wouldn't a standard
> affectation work too? (I mean "synchro = 1;")
>
Here, __atomic_store_n(__ATOMIC_RELAXED) is used to ensure worker threads
see 'synchro=1' after it is changed by the master. And a standard affection can not
ensure worker threads get the new value.
>
> >
> > rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-29 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 9:46 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/8] test/ticketlock: use GCC atomic builtins for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/8] test/spinlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/8] test/rwlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use GCC atomic builtins " Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 7/8] test/service_cores: use GCC atomic builtins for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 8/8] test/rcu_perf: use GCC atomic builtins for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-04 19:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test Stephen Hemminger
2021-06-11 8:40 ` David Marchand
2021-06-11 10:45 ` Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/8] test/ticketlock: use GCC atomic builtins for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/8] test/spinlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/8] test/rwlock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use GCC atomic builtins " Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 7/8] test/service_cores: use GCC atomic builtins for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-16 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] test/rcu: use GCC atomic builtins for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-06-17 15:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-17 23:26 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-23 10:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-06-23 16:02 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-29 17:04 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 18:51 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 19:06 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 19:38 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 20:25 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-06-30 21:49 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-06-30 22:41 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-07-13 7:28 ` Joyce Kong
2021-07-14 11:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/8] use compiler " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] test/ticketlock: use compiler atomics for lcores sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/8] test/spinlock: use compile " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/8] test/rwlock: use compiler " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/8] test/mcslock: " Joyce Kong
2021-07-28 9:56 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-29 7:19 ` Joyce Kong [this message]
2021-07-29 7:58 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/8] test/mempool: remove unused variable " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/8] test/mempool_perf: use compiler atomics " Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/8] test/service_cores: use compiler atomics for lock sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-20 3:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 8/8] test/rcu: use compiler atomics for data sync Joyce Kong
2021-07-23 19:52 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-07-28 7:07 ` Joyce Kong
2021-07-30 21:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/8] use compiler atomic builtins for test 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=AS8PR08MB69357E192881A89EC8A45DB492EB9@AS8PR08MB6935.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=joyce.kong@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.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).