From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F023A0543;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:47:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2346E406B4;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:47:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com
(us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB294069D
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:47:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
s=mimecast20190719; t=1657198041;
h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
bh=ZVh7S/Ql2E/MwFQlcis4nYqP7LDdk0XwWrZWwq7qx8U=;
b=WN8qV1eJEqv0+cNo2u0S9iDfpe3QkLF8bEaNLA8gD2i5BYQRAh66YhcF0vz3uUyG5AMfEp
8QqdOcTSvBcItMevSr6InbDC/xwRqd9vELpxzjtJcAfu9+9cc9e1QditV3i+6bsFxYvPs2
Ob0xgpybEEDu+yXeSj6UK8X6XyfTXc0=
Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com
[209.85.160.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
(version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
us-mta-640-qUE_na53PfeZgUwGKJB7gQ-1; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:47:20 -0400
X-MC-Unique: qUE_na53PfeZgUwGKJB7gQ-1
Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id
m6-20020ac866c6000000b002f52f9fb4edso15351372qtp.19
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding
:content-language;
bh=ZVh7S/Ql2E/MwFQlcis4nYqP7LDdk0XwWrZWwq7qx8U=;
b=nQbzxT/ANbjcqP5CXnQBExef0KgpLgm/Si1YBjzzPMeQAn/E4zJrDyFjz0MqVUyNdT
uPEx6mEWvaPucuqSmJHHtPeT40IseL+sC/wpXwxJJWyOtexGiJJXvBFXO1qL9fCBNE7G
8fFEIRxfQhSOlk3IpOCk9P2xvNDpDGuTOMV34kz68qYmtq+AsXarhkUXLDfT255EHYAF
N7nFkE5i2sqLz/tx5u0p+cwDRv48yqGMV4mPO8tcKxrXHwiczdwMX3/f77yWfYyd1JP1
UV+mc7Os3x9pnsvDDEIZsZwjBihut6hrZQre+U0LqBb/SS2+k4FJJuFmSI+12FUv8MEf
Ek6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/RlXFXwtWh5YA6uka+DRFc9MEmFofv5HZKF1M7/XDA2XvQgjpK
+zDSZCKWfx13iBap50XLDmDVvmqgmOtW2nP14yoNWMIuBPgquTw8OZ5RomEU+ukM+XHF64vZDvU
lnfU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:da6:b0:472:f007:81a3 with SMTP id
h6-20020a0562140da600b00472f00781a3mr19488192qvh.65.1657198040303;
Thu, 07 Jul 2022 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sJbZmfEqcPjiD32U0BK2OUdnAq8MBhU/wNQ4hX9C5FyFJVFHJjJId2Gnt9hhBxmoIQifxjVw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:da6:b0:472:f007:81a3 with SMTP id
h6-20020a0562140da600b00472f00781a3mr19488171qvh.65.1657198040082;
Thu, 07 Jul 2022 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (024-205-208-113.res.spectrum.com.
[24.205.208.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
a14-20020ae9e80e000000b006a77940be22sm30782377qkg.95.2022.07.07.05.47.18
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 07 Jul 2022 05:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] bbdev: add a lock option for enqueue/dequeue
operation
To: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "thomas@monjalon.net"
<thomas@monjalon.net>, "gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
"mdr@ashroe.eu" <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
References: <1655491040-183649-6-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
<1657067022-54373-1-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
<1657067022-54373-8-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
<25b4ece1-8f67-f119-7a0e-5b133f4e571c@redhat.com>
<20220706122048.46555c19@hermes.local>
<BY5PR11MB4451D10A42F00D2DA6771403F8809@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <798292b3-2b52-5393-0cf2-c9b4918f14c5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 05:47:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4451D10A42F00D2DA6771403F8809@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com;
auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=trix@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
On 7/6/22 1:21 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Tom.,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:01:19 -0700
>> Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/5/22 5:23 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>>> Locking is not explicitly required but can be valuable in case the
>>>> application cannot guarantee to be thread-safe, or specifically is
>>>> at risk of using the same queue from multiple threads.
>>>> This is an option for PMD to use this.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> lib/bbdev/rte_bbdev.h | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/bbdev/rte_bbdev.h b/lib/bbdev/rte_bbdev.h index
>>>> b7ecf94..8e7ca86 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/bbdev/rte_bbdev.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/bbdev/rte_bbdev.h
>>>> @@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ struct rte_bbdev_queue_data {
>>>> struct rte_bbdev_stats queue_stats; /**< Queue statistics */
>>>> enum rte_bbdev_enqueue_status enqueue_status; /**< Enqueue
>> status when op is rejected */
>>>> bool started; /**< Queue state */
>>>> + rte_rwlock_t lock_enq; /**< lock protection for the Enqueue */
>>>> + rte_rwlock_t lock_deq; /**< lock protection for the Dequeue */
>>> No.
>>>
>>> This is a good idea but needs a use before introducing another
>>> element, particularly a complicated one like locking
>>>
>>> Tom
> The actual usage would be implemented within the PMD. Basically this to prevent the corner case when a queue is being accessed from multiple thread for which there is no protection in DPDK (but application does not necessarily behaves well).
> In normal operation there would never be a case when there is a conflict on the lock.
> This is not something which was considered for any other PMD?
> From DPDK doc : "If multiple threads are to use the same hardware queue on the same NIC port, then locking, or some other form of mutual exclusion, is necessary."
> Basically for AC100 we would purely enforce the lock for any enqueue/dequeue operation for a given queue (distinct lock for enqueue and dequeue, since these would run on different threads).
I am fine with locking, just have to use them.
For me, this would mean adding them to every public interface so the
changes would be involved.
This is a big change and if pressed to get this patchset into 22.11,
then defer this patch to later.
Tom
>
>> Having two locks on same cacheline will create lots of ping/pong false sharing.
> You would recommend to purely spread them within the structure? Or something else?
>
>> Also, unless the reader is holding the lock for a significant fraction of the time a
>> regular spin lock will be faster.
> OK Thanks. It should in principle never have to wait for the lock for the usage above, only to catch misbehaving application risk.
>
> Nic
>
>