[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/5] hash: add lock-free read-write concurrency

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

> > > > Agree. There are multiple micro-architectures in Arm eco-system.
> > > > We
> > > should establish few simple rules to make sure algorithms perform
> > > well on all the available platforms. I established few rules in VPP
> > > and they are working fine so far.
> > >
> > > Can you share that rules for everyone's benefit?
> > >
> > These are just few simple rules anyone can think of, but avoid the surprises.
> > We identified a owner for each platform (we have this already in DPDK,
> > even across platforms) Each patch submitted for Arm platforms is
> > marked with -2 (VPP uses Gerrit) Every platform owner tests on her/his
> platform. -2 will be removed only if it does not cause regression on any
> platforms. Platform owner helps out with optimization where required as they
> understand their micro-architecture best. I guess this is what is supposed to
> happen through the review process in DPDK. But making sure everyone tests it
> before it gets merged avoids the surprises.
> 
> I think, The very same philosophy can be implemented with exiting mailing list
> method, if
> 
> 1) Author Cc all the architecture maintainers and platform owners for any fast
> path change where it can introduce performance regression.
> 2) Author can CC the same list to request for performance check along with
> test command if area of performance regression known before.
> 
> I agree with last minute surprises are bad for both Author and platform owner.
> I think, it can fixed by above scheme.
> 
Makes sense to me.

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO, This scheme won't work. I think, we are introducing such
> > > > > performance critical feature, we need to put under function
> > > > > pointer scheme so that if an application does not need such
> > > > > feature it can use
> > > plain loads.
> > > > >
> > > > IMO, we should do some more debugging before going into exploring
> > > > other
> > > options.
> > >
> > > Yes. But, how do we align with v18.11 release?
> > >
> > I think I have spent enough time optimizing the code. Please provide the
> feedback and I will work on completing the fix.
> >
> > However, if the new patch is not satisfactory enough, we need another plan.
> 
> Based on the public release meeting held yesterday, RC3 date is on next
> Monday.
> 
> I would suggest:
> - Send your exiting tested patch in mailing list for review. In my
>   setup, The regression reduced to 5.7% from 24%
> - Extend the patch for hash bulk case as well and check
> NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP
>   as zero with  EM_HASH_LOOKUP_COUNT value as 16 or 8 for arm64.
> 
Thank you Jerin for testing. Unfortunately, when I looked at making the corresponding changes for the hash_add API, they look more involved. They may not be acceptable for RC3. I also need more time to spend on bulk case. For RC3, we will split the lookup path for RW-lock and Lock-free. I will add the rest in a follow up patch.

> >
> > You had mentioned about using function pointers. I suggest, we use the
> function pointer only for lookup function. Otherwise, it will be too much of
> code duplication.
> > When lock-free is not used, the function with no memory-orderings will be
> called. However, I am not sure about the function pointer overhead. But this
> will be a simple change.
> 
> It may not be very simple change as we need to take care secondary process
> case as well, see struct rte_mempool::ops_index scheme.
> 
Yes, I realized it while making changes. I have used a if statement with an existing lock-free flag. Will send out the patch soon.

> Since rte_hash_lookup() already NOT a inline function, so making it as inline
> and calling a function pointer inside may not attract much overhead. But we
> can tell only after testing(Which may be not possible for
> RC3)
> 
> I think, in future it make sense to have function pointer scheme to avoid new
> APIs for different hash library and we can plugin other proven hash library like
> urcu based one etc to DPDK.
> 
> https://lwn.net/Articles/573431/