DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
To: "Tummala, Sivaprasad" <Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com>,
	Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
	Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <Ferruh.Yigit@amd.com>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"david.hunt@intel.com" <david.hunt@intel.com>,
	"anatoly.burakov@intel.com" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 3/3] power: amd power monitor support
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:11:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f9dc5bd4089f49578b423c453e0b258c@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BL1PR12MB57774F58837F118786F1524686C2A@BL1PR12MB5777.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>


> > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> >
> >
> > 25/08/2023 17:00, Tyler Retzlaff пишет:
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:04:42AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >> On 8/23/2023 5:03 PM, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/22/2023 11:30 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > >>>>> 18/08/2023 14:48, Bruce Richardson пишет:
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 02:25:14PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 8/17/2023 3:18 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use
> > >>>>>>>>>> proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
> > >>>>>>>>>> responding.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:59:59AM -0700, Sivaprasad Tummala
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> mwaitx allows EPYC processors to enter a implementation
> > >>>>>>>>>>> dependent power/performance optimized state (C1 state) for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> specific period or until a store to the monitored address
> > >>>>>>>>>>> range.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <sivaprasad.tummala@amd.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>>>>>    lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c | 77
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> b/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> index 6eb9e50807..b4754e17da 100644
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,60 @@ static struct power_wait_status {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>         volatile void *monitor_addr; /**< NULL if not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> currently sleeping */  } __rte_cache_aligned
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wait_status[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +/**
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * These functions uses UMONITOR/UMWAIT instructions and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +will
> > >>>>>>>>>>> enter C0.2
> > >>>>>>>>>> state.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * For more information about usage of these instructions,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +please refer to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * Intel(R) 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's
> > Manual.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + */
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +static void intel_umonitor(volatile void *addr) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     /* UMONITOR */
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     asm volatile(".byte 0xf3, 0x0f, 0xae, 0xf7;"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +                     :
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +                     : "D"(addr)); }
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +static void intel_umwait(const uint64_t timeout) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     const uint32_t tsc_l = (uint32_t)timeout;
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     const uint32_t tsc_h = (uint32_t)(timeout >> 32);
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     /* UMWAIT */
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +     asm volatile(".byte 0xf2, 0x0f, 0xae, 0xf7;"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +                     : /* ignore rflags */
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +                     : "D"(0), /* enter C0.2 */
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +                     "a"(tsc_l), "d"(tsc_h)); }
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> question and perhaps Anatoly Burakov can chime in with expertise.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> gcc/clang have built-in intrinsics for umonitor and umwait i
> > >>>>>>>>>> believe as per our other thread of discussion is there a
> > >>>>>>>>>> benefit to also providing inline assembly over just using the
> > >>>>>>>>>> intrinsics? I understand that the intrinsics may not exist
> > >>>>>>>>>> for the monitorx and mwaitx below so it is probably necessary
> > >>>>>>>>>> for amd.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> so the suggestion here is when they are available just use
> > >>>>>>>>>> the intrinsics.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> thanks
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The gcc built-in functions
> > >>>>>>>>> __builtin_ia32_monitorx()/__builtin_ia32_mwaitx are available
> > >>>>>>>>> only when -mmwaitx is used specific for AMD platforms. On
> > >>>>>>>>> generic builds, these built-ins are not available and hence
> > >>>>>>>>> inline assembly is required here.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Ok... but we can probably put them into a separate .c file that
> > >>>>>>>> will be compiled with that specific flag?
> > >>>>>>>> Same thing can be probably done for Intel specific instructions.
> > >>>>>>>> In general, I think it is much more preferable to use built-ins
> > >>>>>>>> vs inline assembly (if possible off-course).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We don't compile different set of files for AMD and Intel, but
> > >>>>>>> there are runtime checks, so putting into separate file is not much
> > different.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Well, we probably don't compile .c files for particular vendor,
> > >>>>> but we definitely do compile some .c files for particular ISA extensions.
> > >>>>> Let say there are files in lib/acl that requires various '-mavx512*'
> > >>>>> flags, same for other libs and PMDs.
> > >>>>> So still not clear to me why same approach can't be applied to
> > >>>>> power_instrincts.c?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It may be an option to always enable compiler flag (-mmwaitx), I
> > >>>>>>> think it won't hurt other platforms but I am not sure about
> > >>>>>>> implications of this to other platforms (what was the motivation
> > >>>>>>> for the compiler guys to enable these build-ins with specific flag?).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Also this requires detecting compiler that supports 'mmwaitx' or
> > >>>>>>> not, etc..
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This is the biggest reason why we have in the past added support
> > >>>>>> for these instructions via asm bytes rather than intrinsics. It
> > >>>>>> takes a long time for end-user compilers, especially those in LTS
> > >>>>>> releases, to get the necessary intrinsics.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yep, understand.
> > >>>>> But why then we can't have both implementations?
> > >>>>> Let say if WAITPKG is defined we can use builtins for
> > >>>>> umonitor/umwait/tpause, otherwise we fallback to inline asm
> > implementation.
> > >>>>> Same story for MWAITX/monitorx.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes this can be done,
> > >>>> it can be done either as different .c files per implementation, or
> > >>>> as #ifdef in same file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But eventually asm implementation is required, as fallback, and if
> > >>>> we will rely on asm implementation anyway, does it worth to have
> > >>>> the additional checks to be able to use built-in intrinsic?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does it helps to comment name of the built-in function to inline
> > >>>> assembly code, to document intention and another possible
> > implementation?
> > >>>
> > >>> the main value of preferring intrinsics is that when they are
> > >>> available they also work with msvc/windows. the msvc toolchain does
> > >>> not support inline asm. so some of the targets have to use
> > >>> intrinsics because that's all there is.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> How windows handles current power APIs without inline asm support,
> > >> like rte_power_intrinsics.c one?
> > >
> > > so this is a windows vs toolchain entanglement.
> > >
> > >> Also will using both built-in and inline assembly work for Windows,
> > >> since there may be compiler versions that doesn't support built-in
> > >> functions, they should disable APIs altogether, and this can create a
> > >> scenario that list of exposed APIs changes based on compiler version.
> > >
> > > so I don't intend to disable apis, theres usually a way to make them
> > > work and there should not be any api changes when done correctly.
> > >
> > > windows/clang/mingw
> > >      * inline asm may be used, but for me isn't preferred
> > >
> > > windows/msvc
> > >      * intrinsics (when available)
> > >      * non-inline asm in a .s (when no intrinsics available)
> > >      * keeping in mind that the compiler version isn't tied to windows
> > >        OS release so it's easier for me to document that you need a
> > >        newer compiler arbitrarily. The periods where there are no intrinsics
> > >        end up being short-lived.
> > >
> > > I'm on the hook for windows/msvc any stickyness dealing with it ends
> > > up being my problem.
> >
> > As I can read rte_power_instrintcts.c, for each set of power instructions we have
> > related static variable: wait*_supported.
> > So if we need to support compiler that supports neither new bultins nor inline-asm,
> > then it probably possible to rearrange the code to keep these static vars equal zero
> > for such case.
> >
> Konstantin,
> I preferred to use the inline asm for the new power instructions with this patch due to:
> 1. builtins may not always available based on compiler versions
> 2. additional complexity with versioning checks

I don't think we'll need to mock with version numbers etc.
AFAIK, each such feature as corresponding define, i.e.:
If WAITPKG is defined we can use builtins for umonitor/umwait/tpause,
If MWAITX is defined we can use mwaitx/monitorx, etc.

> 3. no additional performance benefit
> As an improvement, will add builtins support globally in a separate patch later.

Works for me, as long as we wouldn't forget to do it in future. 

 
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Consider a user running e.g. RHEL 8, who wants to take advantages
> > >>>>>> of the latest DPDK features; they should not be required to
> > >>>>>> upgrade their compiler - and possibly binutils/assembler - to do so.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> /Bruce
> > >>>>>


  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-28 10:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-13 11:53 [PATCH v2 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-13 11:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] doc: announce new cpu flag added to rte_cpu_flag_t Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-17  4:31   ` [PATCH v3 1/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:14     ` [PATCH v4 0/4] power: monitor support for AMD EPYC processors Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:25     ` Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 1/4] doc: announce new cpu flag added to rte_cpu_flag_t Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-18  8:52         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-04-18  9:22           ` Bruce Richardson
2023-06-01  9:23             ` David Marchand
2023-07-05 11:32         ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-16 18:59         ` [PATCH v5 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 18:59           ` [PATCH v5 2/3] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 18:59           ` [PATCH v5 3/3] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-08-16 19:27             ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-17 11:34               ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-08-17 14:18                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-18 13:25                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-18 13:48                     ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-21 15:42                       ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-22 22:30                       ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-08-23  9:19                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-23 16:03                           ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-24  9:04                             ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-08-25 16:00                               ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-30 22:45                                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-09-27 10:38                                   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-09-28 10:11                                     ` Konstantin Ananyev [this message]
2023-10-06  8:26             ` David Marchand
2023-10-09  8:02               ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-10-09 14:05             ` [PATCH v6 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-09 14:05               ` [PATCH v6 2/3] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-09 14:05               ` [PATCH v6 3/3] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-10-10  8:59                 ` David Marchand
2023-10-11  9:33                   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-10-10 10:14                 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-10-09 16:23               ` [PATCH v6 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx Patrick Robb
2023-10-10  8:21                 ` David Marchand
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 2/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:15         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 3/4] eal: removed unnecessary checks in x86 power monitor APIs Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:14         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-18  8:25       ` [PATCH v4 4/4] power: amd power monitor support Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-06-14 13:14         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-04-13 11:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-17  4:34   ` [PATCH v3 4/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala
2023-04-13 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] eal: add x86 cpuid support for monitorx David Marchand
2023-04-13 17:50   ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-04-14  7:05     ` David Marchand
2023-04-14  8:51       ` Tummala, Sivaprasad
2023-04-14 11:48       ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-04-17  4:32 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] " Sivaprasad Tummala

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=f9dc5bd4089f49578b423c453e0b258c@huawei.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
    --cc=Ferruh.Yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=Sivaprasad.Tummala@amd.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
    --cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.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
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).