DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>,
	"bruce.richardson@intel.com" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"Joyce Kong (Arm Technology China)" <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>,
	"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	"Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v3 6/6] spinlock: ticket based to improve fairness
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:53:04 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190103115304.7e6547a0@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR08MB367299C117D953CC65E74A01988D0@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 18:35:31 +0000
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:

> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2018-12-27 at 12:13 +0800, Gavin Hu wrote:  
> > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > From: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The old implementation is unfair, some threads may take locks
> > > > > > > aggressively  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, one issue here is x86 and ppc follows traditional
> > > > > > spinlock and
> > > > > > arm64 will be following ticket lock for spinlock implementation.
> > > > > > This would change application behaviour on arm64 compared to
> > > > > > x86
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > ppc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about having a separate API for ticket lock? That would
> > > > > > give, # application choice to use the locking strategy #
> > > > > > application behaviour will be same across all arch.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, will do in v4 to have a new named rte_ticket_spinlock API.  
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer rte_ticketlock_[lock/unlock/trylock/is_locked] name
> > > > instead of rte_ticket_spinlock_lock etc to reduce the length of the
> > > > API.  
> > >
> > > NAK to adding new API for this.
> > >
> > > I want the best possible locks for all applications and all
> > > architectures.
> > > These should be called spinlock so there is no requirement for
> > > application to change to get better performance. Why not just
> > > implement the best algorithm across the board. Yes, this means
> > > collaboration or working on the other guys architecture.  
> IMO, the ticket lock should be a separate API. Spin lock (as implemented today) and ticket lock have different characteristics in terms of behavior as well as resources required. For ex: spin lock might be sufficient for a low contention use case and it requires less number of cache lines. Ticket lock needs more number of cache lines and might be good for use cases with more contention. The decision to use spin lock vs ticket lock should be left to the application.

The problem is that changing applications is hard. Real world applications are non-trivial
and large. That is while doing things global or at the library level are easier.
Do you want to go back and evaluate every lock in VPP, NFF-go, OVS, Tungsten Fabric, ....

Either a config or runtime option seems best to me.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-03 19:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-27  4:13 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  6:36   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  7:20   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  7:27   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-01-03 18:22     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  7:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27  9:02     ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-03 20:35       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-11 13:52     ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-14  5:54       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-14  7:39         ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-01-14 17:08           ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-14  7:57         ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-27  4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] spinlock: ticket based to improve fairness Gavin Hu
2018-12-27  6:58   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 10:05     ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-27 12:08       ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 23:41         ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-12-28  4:39           ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-28 10:04             ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-03 18:35             ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-03 19:53               ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2019-01-04  7:06                 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli

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=20190103115304.7e6547a0@shemminger-XPS-13-9360 \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Joyce.Kong@arm.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --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).