patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	 Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
	ogerlitz@mellanox.com,
	 Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	ruigeng.wang@arm.com,  Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>,
	Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>,  dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: generic counter based loop for CPU freq calculation
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:20:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CALBAE1PmPiDf+54NkNSfs7sztANdxnU+1M3a1YaZHMGZe27thg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200608213417.9764-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:04 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli
<honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>
> get_tsc_freq uses 'nanosleep' system call to calculate the CPU
> frequency. However, 'nanosleep' results in the process getting
> un-scheduled. The kernel saves and restores the PMU state. This
> ensures that the PMU cycles are not counted towards a sleeping
> process. When RTE_ARM_EAL_RDTSC_USE_PMU is defined, this results
> in incorrect CPU frequency calculation. This logic is replaced
> with generic counter based loop.
>
> Bugzilla ID: 450
> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")

The Fix looks good to me.

The Fixes is not correct. It should be the patch where
RTE_ARM_EAL_RDTSC_USE_PMU got introduced.


> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_cycles_64.h | 45 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  lib/librte_eal/arm/rte_cycles.c            | 24 ++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_cycles_64.h b/lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_cycles_64.h
> index da557b6a1..6fc352036 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_cycles_64.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_cycles_64.h
> @@ -11,6 +11,36 @@ extern "C" {
>
>  #include "generic/rte_cycles.h"
>
> +/** Read generic counter frequency */
> +static inline uint64_t

I prefer to have __rte_allways_inline

> +__rte_rd_generic_cntr_freq(void)

I think, the generic counter is confusing, I think, since the symbol
is exposed due to placed in
header file, it is better to change, __rte_arm64_cntfrq()

> +{
> +       uint64_t freq;
> +
> +       asm volatile("mrs %0, cntfrq_el0" : "=r" (freq));
> +       return freq;
> +}
> +
> +/** Read generic counter */
> +static inline uint64_t

Likewise, __rte_arm64_cntvct()


> +__rte_rd_generic_cntr(void)
> +{
> +       uint64_t tsc;
> +
> +       asm volatile("mrs %0, cntvct_el0" : "=r" (tsc));
> +       return tsc;
> +}
> +
> +static inline uint64_t
> +__rte_rd_generic_cntr_precise(void)

__rte_arm64_cntfrq_precise()

> +{
> +       uint64_t tsc;
> +
> +       asm volatile("isb" : : : "memory");
> +       asm volatile("mrs %0, cntvct_el0" : "=r" (tsc));
> +       return tsc;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * Read the time base register.
>   *
> @@ -25,10 +55,7 @@ extern "C" {
>  static inline uint64_t
>  rte_rdtsc(void)
>  {
> -       uint64_t tsc;
> -
> -       asm volatile("mrs %0, cntvct_el0" : "=r" (tsc));
> -       return tsc;
> +       return __rte_rd_generic_cntr();
>  }
>  #else
>  /**
> @@ -49,14 +76,22 @@ rte_rdtsc(void)
>   * asm volatile("msr pmcr_el0, %0" : : "r" (val));
>   *
>   */
> +
> +/** Read PMU cycle counter */
>  static inline uint64_t
> -rte_rdtsc(void)
> +__rte_rd_pmu_cycle_cntr(void)
>  {
>         uint64_t tsc;
>
>         asm volatile("mrs %0, pmccntr_el0" : "=r"(tsc));
>         return tsc;
>  }
> +
> +static inline uint64_t
> +rte_rdtsc(void)
> +{
> +       return __rte_rd_pmu_cycle_cntr();
> +}
>  #endif
>
>  static inline uint64_t
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/arm/rte_cycles.c b/lib/librte_eal/arm/rte_cycles.c
> index 3500d523e..92c87a8a4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/arm/rte_cycles.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/arm/rte_cycles.c
> @@ -3,14 +3,32 @@
>   */
>
>  #include "eal_private.h"
> +#include "rte_cycles.h"
>
>  uint64_t
>  get_tsc_freq_arch(void)
>  {
>  #if defined RTE_ARCH_ARM64 && !defined RTE_ARM_EAL_RDTSC_USE_PMU
> -       uint64_t freq;
> -       asm volatile("mrs %0, cntfrq_el0" : "=r" (freq));
> -       return freq;
> +       return __rte_rd_generic_cntr_freq();
> +#elif defined RTE_ARCH_ARM64 && defined RTE_ARM_EAL_RDTSC_USE_PMU
> +       /* Use the generic counter ticks to calculate the PMU
> +        * cycle frequency.
> +        */
> +       uint64_t gcnt_ticks;
> +       uint64_t start_ticks, cur_ticks;
> +       uint64_t start_pmu_cycles, end_pmu_cycles;
> +
> +       /* Number of ticks for 1/10 second */
> +       gcnt_ticks = __rte_rd_generic_cntr_freq() / 10;
> +
> +       start_ticks = __rte_rd_generic_cntr_precise();
> +       start_pmu_cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> +       do {
> +               cur_ticks = __rte_rd_generic_cntr();
> +       } while ((cur_ticks - start_ticks) < gcnt_ticks);
> +       end_pmu_cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> +
> +       return ((end_pmu_cycles - start_pmu_cycles) * 10);

Good thought. On the plus side, it will reduce the boot time by .9 sec.

>  #else
>         return 0;

With above changes:

Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>



>  #endif
> --
> 2.17.1
>

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-24 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-08 21:34 [dpdk-stable] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-06-24 12:50 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2020-06-26 20:46   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-06-24 15:09 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-06-26 20:35 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2 1/2] eal/arm: " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-07-07 11:16   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " David Marchand

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=CALBAE1PmPiDf+54NkNSfs7sztANdxnU+1M3a1YaZHMGZe27thg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=ogerlitz@mellanox.com \
    --cc=phil.yang@arm.com \
    --cc=ruigeng.wang@arm.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    /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

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/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 stable stable/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

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


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