From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
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@arm.com, ruifeng.wang@arm.com, dev@dpdk.org,
nd@arm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/8] test/mcslock: use compiler atomics for lcores sync
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:56:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQEp3g2l8LmVCugx@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210720035125.14214-5-joyce.kong@arm.com>
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?
> 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?
What is the reason for using the atomic API here? Wouldn't a standard
affectation work too? (I mean "synchro = 1;")
>
> rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
> --
> 2.17.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-28 9:56 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 [this message]
2021-07-29 7:19 ` Joyce Kong
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=YQEp3g2l8LmVCugx@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=joyce.kong@arm.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.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).