DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
To: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>,
	Phil Yang <Phil.Yang@arm.com>,
	"rsanford@akamai.com" <rsanford@akamai.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
	Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:56:18 +0000
Message-ID: <DBBPR08MB4646CACC822FE47F6F0F4C7398C00@DBBPR08MB4646.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SA0PR11MB4656F6FC8DC23AAA4017B4C0B9C00@SA0PR11MB4656.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

<snip>

> >
> > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
> > > >
> > > > Volatile has no ordering semantics. The rte_timer structure
> > > > defines timer status as a volatile variable and uses the rte_r/wmb
> > > > barrier to guarantee inter-thread visibility.
> > > >
> > > > This patch optimized the volatile operation with c11 atomic
> > > > operations and one-way barrier to save the performance penalty.
> > > > According to the timer_perf_autotest benchmarking results, this
> > > > patch can uplift 10%~16% timer appending performance, 3%~20% timer
> > > > resetting performance and 45% timer callbacks scheduling
> > > > performance on aarch64 and no loss in performance for x86.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > >
> > > Hi Phil,
> > >
> > > It seems like the consensus is to generally avoid replacing rte_atomic_*
> > > interfaces with the GCC builtins directly.   In other areas of DPDK that are
> > > being patched, are the <std_atomic.h> C11 APIs going to be investigated?
> > It
> > > seems like that decision will apply here as well.
> > Agree. The new APIs are going to be 1 to 1 mapped with the built-in
> > intrinsics (the memory orderings used themselves will not change). We
> > should go ahead with the review and conclude any issues. Once the
> > decision is made on what APIs to use, we can submit the next version using
> the APIs decided.
> >
> Thanks, Honnappa.
> 
> I have reviewed the memory orderings and I see no issues with them.   I do
> have a question regarding a comment - I'll pose it inline:
Fantastic, thank you.
I have an unrelated (to this patch) question for you below.

> 
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 90
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > ---------
> > > >  lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h |  2 +-
> > > >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > > b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c index 269e921..be0262d 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
> > > > @@ -10,7 +10,6 @@
> > > >  #include <assert.h>
> > > >  #include <sys/queue.h>
> > > >
> > > > -#include <rte_atomic.h>
> > > >  #include <rte_common.h>
> > > >  #include <rte_cycles.h>
> > > >  #include <rte_eal_memconfig.h>
> > > > @@ -218,7 +217,7 @@ rte_timer_init(struct rte_timer *tim)
> > > >
> > > >  	status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > >  	status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > > -	tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +	__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  /*
> > > > @@ -239,9 +238,9 @@ timer_set_config_state(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > > >
> > > >  	/* wait that the timer is in correct status before update,
> > > >  	 * and mark it as being configured */
> > > > -	while (success == 0) {
> > > > -		prev_status.u32 = tim->status.u32;
> > > > +	prev_status.u32 = __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.u32,
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >
> > > > +	while (success == 0) {
> > > >  		/* timer is running on another core
> > > >  		 * or ready to run on local core, exit
> > > >  		 */
> > > > @@ -258,9 +257,20 @@ timer_set_config_state(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > > >  		 * mark it atomically as being configured */
> > > >  		status.state = RTE_TIMER_CONFIG;
> > > >  		status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > > -		success = rte_atomic32_cmpset(&tim->status.u32,
> > > > -					      prev_status.u32,
> > > > -					      status.u32);
> > > > +		/* If status is observed as RTE_TIMER_CONFIG earlier,
> > > > +		 * that's not going to cause any issues because the
> > > > +		 * pattern is read for status then read the other members.
> 
> I don't follow the above comment.  What is meant by "earlier"?
> 
> Thanks,
> Erik
I would rather change this comment to something similar to what is mentioned while changing to 'RUNNING' state.
'CONFIG' is also a locking state. I think it is much easier to understand.

> 
> > > > +		 * In one of the callers to timer_set_config_state
> > > > +		 * (the __rte_timer_reset) we set other members to the
> > > > +		 * structure (period, expire, f, arg) we want these
> > > > +		 * changes to be observed after our change to status.
> > > > +		 * So we need __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE here.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		success = __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&tim-
> > > > >status.u32,
> > > > +					      &prev_status.u32,
> > > > +					      status.u32, 0,
> > > > +					      __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE,
> > > > +					      __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > >  	ret_prev_status->u32 = prev_status.u32; @@ -279,20 +289,27 @@
> > > > timer_set_running_state(struct rte_timer *tim)
> > > >
> > > >  	/* wait that the timer is in correct status before update,
> > > >  	 * and mark it as running */
> > > > -	while (success == 0) {
> > > > -		prev_status.u32 = tim->status.u32;
> > > > +	prev_status.u32 = __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.u32,
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >
> > > > +	while (success == 0) {
> > > >  		/* timer is not pending anymore */
> > > >  		if (prev_status.state != RTE_TIMER_PENDING)
> > > >  			return -1;
> > > >
> > > >  		/* here, we know that timer is stopped or pending,
> > > > -		 * mark it atomically as being configured */
> > > > +		 * mark it atomically as being running
> > > > +		 */
> > > >  		status.state = RTE_TIMER_RUNNING;
> > > >  		status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > > -		success = rte_atomic32_cmpset(&tim->status.u32,
> > > > -					      prev_status.u32,
> > > > -					      status.u32);
> > > > +		/* RUNNING states are acting as locked states. If the
> > > > +		 * timer is in RUNNING state, the state cannot be changed
> > > > +		 * by other threads. So, we should use ACQUIRE here.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		success = __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&tim-
> > > > >status.u32,
> > > > +					      &prev_status.u32,
> > > > +					      status.u32, 0,
> > > > +					      __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE,
> > > > +					      __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > > @@ -520,10 +537,12 @@ __rte_timer_reset(struct rte_timer *tim,
> > > > uint64_t expire,
> > > >
> > > >  	/* update state: as we are in CONFIG state, only us can modify
> > > >  	 * the state so we don't need to use cmpset() here */
> > > > -	rte_wmb();
> > > >  	status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > >  	status.owner = (int16_t)tim_lcore;
> > > > -	tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +	/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory operations above
> > > > +	 * the status update are observed before the update by all threads
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >
> > > >  	if (tim_lcore != lcore_id || !local_is_locked)
> > > >  		rte_spinlock_unlock(&priv_timer[tim_lcore].list_lock);
> > > > @@ -600,10 +619,12 @@ __rte_timer_stop(struct rte_timer *tim, int
> > > > local_is_locked,
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > >  	/* mark timer as stopped */
> > > > -	rte_wmb();
> > > >  	status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > >  	status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > > -	tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +	/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory operations above
> > > > +	 * the status update are observed before the update by all threads
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > > @@ -637,7 +658,8 @@ rte_timer_stop_sync(struct rte_timer *tim)
> > > > int rte_timer_pending(struct rte_timer *tim)  {
> > > > -	return tim->status.state == RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > > +	return __atomic_load_n(&tim->status.state,
> > > > +				__ATOMIC_RELAXED) ==
> > > > RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  /* must be called periodically, run all timer that expired */ @@
> > > > -739,8
> > > > +761,12 @@ __rte_timer_manage(struct rte_timer_data *timer_data)
> > > >  			/* remove from done list and mark timer as stopped
> > > */
> > > >  			status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > >  			status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > > -			rte_wmb();
> > > > -			tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +			/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > > +			 * operations above the status update are observed
> > > > +			 * before the update by all threads
> > > > +			 */
> > > > +			__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > +				__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >  		}
> > > >  		else {
> > > >  			/* keep it in list and mark timer as pending */ @@ -
> > > > 748,8 +774,12 @@ __rte_timer_manage(struct rte_timer_data
> > *timer_data)
> > > >  			status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
Is it better to set this to STOPPED since it is out of the run list? I think it is better for the understanding as well.

> > > >  			__TIMER_STAT_ADD(priv_timer, pending, 1);
> > > >  			status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
> > > > -			rte_wmb();
> > > > -			tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +			/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > > +			 * operations above the status update are observed
> > > > +			 * before the update by all threads
> > > > +			 */
> > > > +			__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > +				__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >  			__rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period,
> > > >  				tim->period, lcore_id, tim->f, tim->arg, 1,
> > > >  				timer_data);
> > > > @@ -919,8 +949,12 @@ rte_timer_alt_manage(uint32_t timer_data_id,
> > > >  			/* remove from done list and mark timer as stopped
> > > */
> > > >  			status.state = RTE_TIMER_STOP;
> > > >  			status.owner = RTE_TIMER_NO_OWNER;
> > > > -			rte_wmb();
> > > > -			tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +			/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > > +			 * operations above the status update are observed
> > > > +			 * before the update by all threads
> > > > +			 */
> > > > +			__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > +				__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >  		} else {
> > > >  			/* keep it in list and mark timer as pending */
> > > >  			rte_spinlock_lock(
> > > > @@ -928,8 +962,12 @@ rte_timer_alt_manage(uint32_t timer_data_id,
> > > >  			status.state = RTE_TIMER_PENDING;
> > > >  			__TIMER_STAT_ADD(data->priv_timer, pending, 1);
> > > >  			status.owner = (int16_t)this_lcore;
> > > > -			rte_wmb();
> > > > -			tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
> > > > +			/* The "RELEASE" ordering guarantees the memory
> > > > +			 * operations above the status update are observed
> > > > +			 * before the update by all threads
> > > > +			 */
> > > > +			__atomic_store_n(&tim->status.u32, status.u32,
> > > > +				__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > > >  			__rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period,
> > > >  				tim->period, this_lcore, tim->f, tim->arg, 1,
> > > >  				data);
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > > b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h index c6b3d45..df533fa 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h
> > > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct rte_timer  {
> > > >  	uint64_t expire;       /**< Time when timer expire. */
> > > >  	struct rte_timer *sl_next[MAX_SKIPLIST_DEPTH];
> > > > -	volatile union rte_timer_status status; /**< Status of timer. */
> > > > +	union rte_timer_status status; /**< Status of timer. */
> > > >  	uint64_t period;       /**< Period of timer (0 if not periodic). */
> > > >  	rte_timer_cb_t f;      /**< Callback function. */
> > > >  	void *arg;             /**< Argument to callback function. */
> > > > --
> > > > 2.7.4


  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-08 21:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-24  6:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/timer: protect timer subsystem initialized with lock Phil Yang
2020-02-24  6:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update Phil Yang
2020-04-08 10:23   ` Phil Yang
2020-04-08 21:10   ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-08 21:16     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-04-08 21:26       ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-08 21:56         ` Honnappa Nagarahalli [this message]
2020-04-09 19:29           ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-10  4:39             ` Phil Yang
2020-04-20 16:05   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Phil Yang
2020-04-23 20:06     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-04-24  1:26       ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-24  7:27         ` Phil Yang
2020-04-24  7:24     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Phil Yang
2020-04-25 17:17       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-26  7:36         ` Phil Yang
2020-04-26 12:18           ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-26 14:20             ` Phil Yang
2020-04-26 19:30               ` Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-26 14:45       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Phil Yang
2020-04-26 20:06         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-25 14:36     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-25 15:51       ` Phil Yang
2020-04-25 16:07         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-25 22:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/timer: protect timer subsystem initialized with lock Carrillo, Erik G
2020-04-25 17:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " 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=DBBPR08MB4646CACC822FE47F6F0F4C7398C00@DBBPR08MB4646.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Phil.Yang@arm.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=erik.g.carrillo@intel.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=rsanford@akamai.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git