DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: "bruce.richardson@intel.com" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"yipeng1.wang@intel.com" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>,
	Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>,
	"Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>, "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"ferruh.yigit@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	"chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kapoor, Prasun" <Prasun.Kapoor@cavium.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/5] hash: add lock-free read-write concurrency
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 01:34:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR08MB3672D253F65AA1C09CE934C798C60@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181106090953.GA5671@jerin>


> > Agree. There are multiple micro-architectures in Arm eco-system. We
> should establish few simple rules to make sure algorithms perform well on all
> the available platforms. I established few rules in VPP and they are working
> fine so far.
> 
> Can you share that rules for everyone's benefit?
> 
These are just few simple rules anyone can think of, but avoid the surprises.
We identified a owner for each platform (we have this already in DPDK, even across platforms)
Each patch submitted for Arm platforms is marked with -2 (VPP uses Gerrit)
Every platform owner tests on her/his platform. -2 will be removed only if it does not cause regression on any platforms. Platform owner helps out with optimization where required as they understand their micro-architecture best. I guess this is what is supposed to happen through the review process in DPDK. But making sure everyone tests it before it gets merged avoids the surprises.

> > >
> > > IMO, This scheme won't work. I think, we are introducing such
> > > performance critical feature, we need to put under function pointer
> > > scheme so that if an application does not need such feature it can use
> plain loads.
> > >
> > IMO, we should do some more debugging before going into exploring other
> options.
> 
> Yes. But, how do we align with v18.11 release?
> 
I think I have spent enough time optimizing the code. Please provide the feedback and I will work on completing the fix.

However, if the new patch is not satisfactory enough, we need another plan.

You had mentioned about using function pointers. I suggest, we use the function pointer only for lookup function. Otherwise, it will be too much of code duplication.
When lock-free is not used, the function with no memory-orderings will be called. However, I am not sure about the function pointer overhead. But this will be a simple change.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-11-09  1:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-26  5:37 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/5] Address reader-writer concurrency in rte_hash Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26  5:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/5] hash: separate multi-writer from rw-concurrency Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26  5:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/5] hash: support do not free on delete Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26  5:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/5] hash: fix key store element alignment Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26  5:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/5] hash: add lock-free read-write concurrency Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-03 11:52   ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-03 15:40     ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-06  6:07       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-06  9:10         ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-06  9:13           ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-11-06  9:47             ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-09  1:34           ` Honnappa Nagarahalli [this message]
2018-11-09  2:20             ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-09  9:28             ` Jerin Jacob
2018-11-09 15:37               ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-11-07  2:15         ` Wang, Yipeng1
2018-11-09  0:47           ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26  5:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 5/5] test/hash: read-write lock-free concurrency test Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-10-26 10:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/5] Address reader-writer concurrency in rte_hash 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=AM6PR08MB3672D253F65AA1C09CE934C798C60@AM6PR08MB3672.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com \
    --cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Prasun.Kapoor@cavium.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.com \
    /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).