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 66D0AA0540;
Tue, 24 May 2022 18:28:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F408400EF;
Tue, 24 May 2022 18:28:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com
[209.85.208.174])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EA1400D6
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 May 2022 18:28:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id i23so21532689ljb.4
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 May 2022 09:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=semihalf-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=rFPRcvDE7POC6Ebk6rL6dxvG1ePYY1mJC0RdtmMnJLE=;
b=cTfui4d/k6YyFhYV6lcEWRNODGxAKfpM5zDItWjsAJQpdwtcrXjhepXbVOXbsiKWFR
a5vqaRsWi+1YDcqCmjXArH6M5fSdbn7l2TclMxnYymGD6YzQ6SasqtEN7AgbuFv9sLkr
3RULdlQvMH6cX+SbOb3Q090SB+GZn52obq1E5WjPxy0kYyHM2YuqLtSELu9eFvfsjv0D
bv0jqglm/Z1ChYqbEKxQPU2Ie2+thkQHZJo9qztnWV0R+SiepXmDmv9vlp3jgYbxtRXr
l6qI31inkSlSw3U2WYri/WtGjERh1zWU08cNXDepcexYumPRFGKujFP3p9cNsPEoBegD
85EA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=rFPRcvDE7POC6Ebk6rL6dxvG1ePYY1mJC0RdtmMnJLE=;
b=DC1WxDpWZaC7P8xKhfy0TCyjv7+1h3iSnZDpHSVL0e60hySgUcQJ5E4K3J6Kl37QEo
IuOtEFklRyCR81YJ5zoQIHlDTCzkjPXWX0zEAHx5eKO8hk8XggZ1kB6dC4Y8Zlqdnblg
bcy2SWzVJTQxH18Xx02HLchlGOFr153Je6LYUflOi1mM5f4aS5KNicT3bxIxaY6uhRPR
Om+eNN6oR/fgdtCRxPyjhOGsw5q12onlPp9/nHDFR8M1tn6cWYPMdwg3FVOskFT/frWs
l1EFKFIDQWNKm4fbZ3chMTk5K6/JE/qoW2KMdm3uXcnOatbL+sevEvzM2hxMy7kwIE8x
MqJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Els/k4Mya4WidbB8DJglzbBg36hbH3JIs9FKRwvrXXfdXmMSC
TdEqpiPgDHrTk9zSyb4ZtxkblaOX5WI/jdFNCEy5Bg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOtGEsHlH3QeJ1H9nsjC7qq0x4RisVbcOqUWQX8WhIVSYA9Ov18lp0mzaKNuzMMO/A2nLtqnFxrXS+P6n2PhQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9094:0:b0:253:c354:9c93 with SMTP id
l20-20020a2e9094000000b00253c3549c93mr16466090ljg.226.1653409718661; Tue, 24
May 2022 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220510115824.457885-1-kda@semihalf.com>
<d60986b2-8b8c-c12e-e960-007b83e85e1d@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <d60986b2-8b8c-c12e-e960-007b83e85e1d@intel.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Stanis=C5=82aw_Kardach?= <kda@semihalf.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CALVGJWJjf7NX31-0rzWD6tWXC4sgeCT-iKwuU3XAocMBHCGOsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lpm: add a scalar version of lookupx4 function
To: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Mazurek <maz@semihalf.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
Frank Zhao <Frank.Zhao@starfivetech.com>, Sam Grove <sam.grove@sifive.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>, upstream@semihalf.com,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 Thu, May 19, 2022 at 7:04 PM Medvedkin, Vladimir
<vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stanislaw, Michal,
>
> As far as I can see, this implementation almost completely repeats other
> lookupx4() implementations, except for the use of vector instructions.
>
> On my board (x86_64) in lpm_perf_autotest your implementation takes about:
> LPM LookupX4: 29.5 cycles (fails = 12.5%)
>
> replacing this code with a simple loop with rte_lpm_lookup():
>
> uint32_t nh;
> int i, ret;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> ret = rte_lpm_lookup((struct rte_lpm *)lpm, ((rte_xmm_t)ip).u32[i], &nh);
> hop[i] = (ret == 0) ? nh : defv;
> }
>
> works faster:
> LPM LookupX4: 22.2 cycles (fails = 12.5%)
>
> I'm wondering if this will work faster on your board (I assume it it
> RISC-V arch)?
Hi Vladimir,
On my HiFive Unmatched RISC-V board there is a marginal difference (~ -1.56%):
Our version: 210.5 cycles (fails = 12.5%)
rte_lpm_lookup version: 213.8 cycles (fails = 12.5%)
Given that x86 is faster with rte_lpm_lookup, I'll change to this
implementation in the next version.
That said I wonder why do we have different const requirements for
rte_lpm_lookup() and rte_lpm_lookupx4():
static inline int rte_lpm_lookup(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip,
uint32_t *next_hop)
static inline void rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t
ip, uint32_t hop[4], uint32_t defv);
I think both should be const.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 10/05/2022 12:58, Stanislaw Kardach wrote:
> > From: Michal Mazurek <maz@semihalf.com>
> >
> > Add an implementation of the rte_lpm_lookupx4() function for platforms
> > without support for vector operations.
> >
> > This will be useful in the upcoming RISC-V port as well as any platform
> > which may want to start with a basic level of LPM support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Mazurek <maz@semihalf.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com>
> > ---
> > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_07.rst | 5 +
> > lib/lpm/meson.build | 1 +
> > lib/lpm/rte_lpm.h | 4 +-
> > lib/lpm/rte_lpm_scalar.h | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > create mode 100644 lib/lpm/rte_lpm_scalar.h
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_07.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_07.rst
> > index 4ae91dd94d..73e8d632f2 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_07.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_07.rst
> > @@ -70,6 +70,11 @@ New Features
> > * Added AH mode support in lookaside protocol (IPsec) for CN9K & CN10K.
> > * Added AES-GMAC support in lookaside protocol (IPsec) for CN9K & CN10K.
> >
> > +* **Added scalar version of the LPM library.**
> > +
> > + * Added scalar implementation of ``rte_lpm_lookupx4``. This is a fall-back
> > + implementation for platforms that don't support vector operations.
> > +
> >
> > Removed Items
> > -------------
> > diff --git a/lib/lpm/meson.build b/lib/lpm/meson.build
> > index 78d91d3421..6b47361fce 100644
> > --- a/lib/lpm/meson.build
> > +++ b/lib/lpm/meson.build
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ headers = files('rte_lpm.h', 'rte_lpm6.h')
> > indirect_headers += files(
> > 'rte_lpm_altivec.h',
> > 'rte_lpm_neon.h',
> > + 'rte_lpm_scalar.h',
> > 'rte_lpm_sse.h',
> > 'rte_lpm_sve.h',
> > )
> > diff --git a/lib/lpm/rte_lpm.h b/lib/lpm/rte_lpm.h
> > index eb91960e81..b5db6a353a 100644
> > --- a/lib/lpm/rte_lpm.h
> > +++ b/lib/lpm/rte_lpm.h
> > @@ -405,8 +405,10 @@ rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t ip, uint32_t hop[4],
> > #endif
> > #elif defined(RTE_ARCH_PPC_64)
> > #include "rte_lpm_altivec.h"
> > -#else
> > +#elif defined(RTE_ARCH_X86)
> > #include "rte_lpm_sse.h"
> > +#else
> > +#include "rte_lpm_scalar.h"
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > diff --git a/lib/lpm/rte_lpm_scalar.h b/lib/lpm/rte_lpm_scalar.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..991b94e687
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/lpm/rte_lpm_scalar.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > + * Copyright(c) 2022 StarFive
> > + * Copyright(c) 2022 SiFive
> > + * Copyright(c) 2022 Semihalf
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _RTE_LPM_SCALAR_H_
> > +#define _RTE_LPM_SCALAR_H_
> > +
> > +#include <rte_branch_prediction.h>
> > +#include <rte_byteorder.h>
> > +#include <rte_common.h>
> > +#include <rte_vect.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef __cplusplus
> > +extern "C" {
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static inline void
> > +rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t ip, uint32_t hop[4],
> > + uint32_t defv)
> > +{
> > + rte_xmm_t i24;
> > + rte_xmm_t i8;
> > + uint32_t tbl[4];
> > + uint64_t pt, pt2;
> > + const uint32_t *ptbl;
> > +
> > + const rte_xmm_t mask8 = {
> > + .u32 = {UINT8_MAX, UINT8_MAX, UINT8_MAX, UINT8_MAX}};
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK for 2 LPM entries
> > + * as one 64-bit value (0x0300000003000000).
> > + */
> > + const uint64_t mask_xv =
> > + ((uint64_t)RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK |
> > + (uint64_t)RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK << 32);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS for 2 LPM entries
> > + * as one 64-bit value (0x0100000001000000).
> > + */
> > + const uint64_t mask_v =
> > + ((uint64_t)RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS |
> > + (uint64_t)RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS << 32);
> > +
> > + /* get 4 indexes for tbl24[]. */
> > + i24.x = ip;
> > + i24.u32[0] >>= CHAR_BIT;
> > + i24.u32[1] >>= CHAR_BIT;
> > + i24.u32[2] >>= CHAR_BIT;
> > + i24.u32[3] >>= CHAR_BIT;
> > +
> > + /* extract values from tbl24[] */
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl24[i24.u32[0]];
> > + tbl[0] = *ptbl;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl24[i24.u32[1]];
> > + tbl[1] = *ptbl;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl24[i24.u32[2]];
> > + tbl[2] = *ptbl;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl24[i24.u32[3]];
> > + tbl[3] = *ptbl;
> > +
> > + /* get 4 indexes for tbl8[]. */
> > + i8.x = ip;
> > + i8.u64[0] &= mask8.u64[0];
> > + i8.u64[1] &= mask8.u64[1];
> > +
> > + pt = (uint64_t)tbl[0] |
> > + (uint64_t)tbl[1] << 32;
> > + pt2 = (uint64_t)tbl[2] |
> > + (uint64_t)tbl[3] << 32;
> > +
> > + /* search successfully finished for all 4 IP addresses. */
> > + if (likely((pt & mask_xv) == mask_v) &&
> > + likely((pt2 & mask_xv) == mask_v)) {
> > + *(uint64_t *)hop = pt & RTE_LPM_MASKX4_RES;
> > + *(uint64_t *)(hop + 2) = pt2 & RTE_LPM_MASKX4_RES;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (unlikely((pt & RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK) ==
> > + RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK)) {
> > + i8.u32[0] = i8.u32[0] +
> > + (tbl[0] & 0x00FFFFFF) * RTE_LPM_TBL8_GROUP_NUM_ENTRIES;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl8[i8.u32[0]];
> > + tbl[0] = *ptbl;
> > + }
> > + if (unlikely((pt >> 32 & RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK) ==
> > + RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK)) {
> > + i8.u32[1] = i8.u32[1] +
> > + (tbl[1] & 0x00FFFFFF) * RTE_LPM_TBL8_GROUP_NUM_ENTRIES;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl8[i8.u32[1]];
> > + tbl[1] = *ptbl;
> > + }
> > + if (unlikely((pt2 & RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK) ==
> > + RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK)) {
> > + i8.u32[2] = i8.u32[2] +
> > + (tbl[2] & 0x00FFFFFF) * RTE_LPM_TBL8_GROUP_NUM_ENTRIES;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl8[i8.u32[2]];
> > + tbl[2] = *ptbl;
> > + }
> > + if (unlikely((pt2 >> 32 & RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK) ==
> > + RTE_LPM_VALID_EXT_ENTRY_BITMASK)) {
> > + i8.u32[3] = i8.u32[3] +
> > + (tbl[3] & 0x00FFFFFF) * RTE_LPM_TBL8_GROUP_NUM_ENTRIES;
> > + ptbl = (const uint32_t *)&lpm->tbl8[i8.u32[3]];
> > + tbl[3] = *ptbl;
> > + }
> > +
> > + hop[0] = (tbl[0] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) ? tbl[0] & 0x00FFFFFF : defv;
> > + hop[1] = (tbl[1] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) ? tbl[1] & 0x00FFFFFF : defv;
> > + hop[2] = (tbl[2] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) ? tbl[2] & 0x00FFFFFF : defv;
> > + hop[3] = (tbl[3] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) ? tbl[3] & 0x00FFFFFF : defv;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#ifdef __cplusplus
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#endif /* _RTE_LPM_SCALAR_H_ */
>
> --
> Regards,
> Vladimir