DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.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>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:29:05 +0000
Message-ID: <SA0PR11MB465611E766286C316546EC97B9C10@SA0PR11MB4656.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR08MB4646CACC822FE47F6F0F4C7398C00@DBBPR08MB4646.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:56 PM
> To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>; Phil Yang
> <Phil.Yang@arm.com>; rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; jerinj@marvell.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: [PATCH 2/2] lib/timer: relax barrier for status update
> 
> <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);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  /*

<... snipped ...>

> > > > > @@ -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.
> 

Ok, thanks - that makes sense.

< ... snipped ...>

> > > > > 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.
> 

In this location, we are dealing with periodic timers, and we are about to restart the current timer after it just expired and its callback was executed.  As I understand it, setting the state back to PENDING here will cause the timer_reset() call below to remove this timer from the list (run list) it's still in (and fix up the links from the previous to the next elements), update other bits of the data structure, and update stats.   That behavior would change if we set the state to STOPPED.  At least to me, it also seems like the PENDING state is still accurate conceptually since the periodic timer wasn't explicitly stopped by this processing.

Thanks,
Erik

> > > > >  			__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:[~2020-04-09 19:29 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
2020-04-09 19:29           ` Carrillo, Erik G [this message]
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=SA0PR11MB465611E766286C316546EC97B9C10@SA0PR11MB4656.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=erik.g.carrillo@intel.com \
    --cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Phil.Yang@arm.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --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