Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)

[Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>]

On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 21:05 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 1:44 PM
> > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd@arm.com>;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> > olivier.matz@6wind.com; arybchenko@solarflare.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
> > Technology China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)
> > 
> > On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 19:28 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 1:02 PM
> > > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd@arm.com>;
> > > > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> > > > olivier.matz@6wind.com; arybchenko@solarflare.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
> > > > Technology China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64
> > > > only)
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 17:06 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:02 PM
> > > > > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Cc: arybchenko@solarflare.com; jerinj@marvell.com;
> > > > > > chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd@arm.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> > > > > > olivier.matz@6wind.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > > > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> > > > > > <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset
> > > > > > (x86-64
> > > > > > only)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 11:29 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This operation can be used for non-blocking algorithms, such
> > > > > > > as a non-blocking stack or ring.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h        | 31
> > > > > > > +++++++++++
> > > > > > >  lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h | 65
> > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  2 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > > > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > > > > index fd2ec9c53..b7b90b83e 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > > > > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > > > > > >  /*
> > > > > > >   * Inspired from FreeBSD src/sys/amd64/include/atomic.h
> > > > > > >   * Copyright (c) 1998 Doug Rabson
> > > > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Intel Corporation
> > > > > > >   * All rights reserved.
> > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  #include <stdint.h>
> > > > > > >  #include <rte_common.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <rte_compat.h>
> > > > > > >  #include <rte_atomic.h>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  /*------------------------- 64 bit atomic operations
> > > > > > > ------------------------ -*/ @@ -208,4 +210,33 @@ static
> > > > > > > inline void rte_atomic64_clear(rte_atomic64_t *v)
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +static inline int __rte_experimental
> > > > > > __rte_always_inline?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +rte_atomic128_cmpset(volatile rte_int128_t *dst,
> > > > > > No need to declare the location volatile. Volatile doesn't do
> > > > > > what you think it does.
> > > > > > https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g?t=1027
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I made this volatile to match the existing rte_atomicN_cmpset
> > > > > definitions, which presumably have a good reason for using the
> > > > > keyword. Maintainers, any input here?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +		     rte_int128_t *exp,
> > > > > > I would declare 'exp' const as well and document that 'exp' is
> > > > > > not updated (with the old value) for a failure. The reason being
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > ARMv8.0/AArch64 cannot atomically read the old value without
> > > > > > also writing the location and that is bad for performance
> > > > > > (unnecessary writes leads to unnecessary contention and worse
> > > > > > scalability). And the user must anyway read the location (in the
> > > > > > start of the critical
> > > > > > section) using e.g. non-atomic 64-bit reads so there isn't
> > > > > > actually any requirement for an atomic 128-bit read of the location.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Will change in v2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  rte_int128_t *src,
> > > > > > const rte_int128_t *src?
> > > > > Sure, I don't see any harm in using const.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But why are we not passing 'exp' and 'src' by value? That works
> > > > > > great, even with structs. Passing by value simplifies the
> > > > > > compiler's life, especially if the call is inlined. Ask a compiler
> > > > > > developer.
> > > > > I ran objdump on the nb_stack code with both approaches, and
> > > > > pass-by-reference resulted in fewer overall x86_64 assembly ops.
> > > > > PBV: 100 ops for push, 97 ops for pop
> > > > > PBR: 92 ops for push, 84 ops for pop
> > > > OK I have never checked x86_64 code generation... I have good
> > > > experiences with ARM/AArch64, everything seems to be done using
> > > > registers. I am surprised there is a difference.
> > > > 
> > > > Did a quick check with lfring, passing 'src' (third param) by
> > > > reference and by value. No difference in code generation on x86_64.
> > > > 
> > > > But if you insist let's go with PBR.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (Using the in-progress v5 nb_stack code)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Another factor -- though much less compelling -- is that with
> > > > > pass-by- reference, the user can create a 16B structure and cast
> > > > > it to rte_int128_t when they call rte_atomic128_cmpset, whereas
> > > > > with pass-by-value they need to put that struct in a union with
> > rte_int128_t.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Which is what I always do nowadays... Trying to use as few casts as
> > > > possible and lie to the compiler as seldom as possible. But I can
> > > > see the freedom provided by taking a pointer to something and cast
> > > > it it rte_int128_t ptr in the call to rte_atomic128_cmpset().
> > > > 
> > > > Would prefer a name that is more similar to __atomic_compare_exchange().
> > > > E.g.
> > > > rte_atomic128_compare_exchange() (or perhaps just
> > rte_atomic128_cmpxchg)?
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > All the rte_atomicXX_cmpset() functions do not take any memory order
> > > > parameters.
> > > > From an Arm perspective, we are not happy with that.
> > > Since the function returns a boolean success value, isn't
> > > compare-and-set the appropriate term?
> > I was thinking of the memory ordering parameters that __atomic_xxx builtins
> > have and we want (from an Arm perspective).
> > 
> > GCC __atomic_compare_exchange also returns a boolean.
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
> > bool __atomic_compare_exchange_n (type *ptr, type *expected, type desired,
> > bool weak, int success_memorder, int failure_memorder) bool
> > __atomic_compare_exchange (type *ptr, type *expected, type *desired, bool
> > weak, int success_memorder, int failure_memorder)
> > 
> > rte_atomic128_compare_exchange(rte_int128_t *dst, const rte_int128_t *exp,
> > const rte_int182_t *src, bool weak, int mo_success, int mo_failure);
> > 
> I assumed GCC chose the name "exchange" because the builtin modifies 'exp' on
> failure, but I could be wrong.
You are probably right. But exchange doesn't necessary mean that the old value
is returned, just that it is replaced with a different value?
However __atomic_exchange() (unconditionally) returns the old value so there is
some precedent for retunrning the old value. And it can be done, just not
guaranteed to be atomic. Perhaps there is a way to both eat and have the cake?

Re-use the prototype of __atomic_compare_exchange_16() so must return a value if
the comparison fails. But depending on the 'weak' flag, we for weak=false
require an atomic read which on ARMv8.0 must be accomplished by writing back the
old value (if the comparison fails). Or for weak=true we allow both spurious
LL/SC failures (this is what the weak parameter is for) and non-atomic read of
the old value (this is my 'frail' atomic compare and exchange in lfring).

The GCC documentation says this:
"If they are not equal, the operation is a read and the current contents of ptr
are written into expected."
We follow this but just don't guarantee an atomic read (for weak=true).

bool
rte_atomic128_compare_exchange(rte_int128_t *dst,
                               rte_int128_t *exp, //Note no const now
                               const rte_int128_t *src,
                               bool weak,
                               int mo_success,
                               int mo_failure);


>  I'm fine with either name. Anyone else have a preference?

> 
> <snip>
-- 
Ola Liljedahl, Networking System Architect, Arm
Phone +46706866373, Skype ola.liljedahl