[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)

[Eads, Gage]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:28 PM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; arybchenko at solarflare.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)
> 
> > > >
> > > > This operation can be used for non-blocking algorithms, such as a
> > > > non- blocking stack or ring.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h        | 22
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > index fd2ec9c53..34c2addf8 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > > Since this is a 128b operation should there be a new file created
> > > with the name rte_atomic_128.h?
> > >
> > > > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * Inspired from FreeBSD src/sys/amd64/include/atomic.h
> > > >   * Copyright (c) 1998 Doug Rabson
> > > > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Intel Corporation
> > > >   * All rights reserved.
> > > >   */
> > > >
> > > > @@ -208,4 +209,25 @@ static inline void
> > > > rte_atomic64_clear(rte_atomic64_t
> > > > *v)  }  #endif
> > > >
> > > > +static inline int
> > > > +rte_atomic128_cmpset(volatile uint64_t *dst, uint64_t *exp,
> > > > +uint64_t
> > > > +*src) {
> > > The API name suggests it is a 128b operation. 'dst', 'exp' and 'src'
> > > should be pointers to 128b (__int128)? Or we could define our own
> > > data
> > type.
> >
> > I agree, I'm not a big fan of the 64b pointers here. I avoided
> > __int128 originally because it fails to compile with -pedantic, but on
> > second thought (and with your suggestion of a separate data type), we
> > can resolve that with this typedef:
> >
> > typedef struct {
> >         RTE_STD_C11 __int128 val;
> > } rte_int128_t;
> ok
> 
> >
> > > Since, it is a new API, can we define it with memory orderings which
> > > will be more conducive to relaxed memory ordering based architectures?
> > > You can refer to [1] and [2] for guidance.
> >
> > I certainly see the value in controlling the operation's memory
> > ordering, like in the __atomic intrinsics, but I'm not sure this
> > patchset is the right place to address that. I see that work going a couple
> ways:
> > 1. Expand the existing rte_atomicN_* interfaces with additional
> > arguments. In that case, I'd prefer this be done in a separate
> > patchset that addresses all the atomic operations, not just cmpset, so
> > the interface changes are chosen according to the needs of the full
> > set of atomic operations. If this approach is taken then there's no
> > need to solve this while rte_atomic128_cmpset is experimental, since all the
> other functions are non-experimental anyway.
> >
> > - Or -
> >
> > 2. Don't modify the existing rte_atomicN_* interfaces (or their
> > strongly ordered behavior), and instead create new versions of them
> > that take additional arguments. In this case, we can implement
> > rte_atomic128_cmpset() as is and create a more flexible version in a later
> patchset.
> >
> > Either way, I think the current interface (w.r.t. memory ordering
> > options) can work and still leaves us in a good position for future
> changes/improvements.
> >
> I do not see the need to modify/extend the existing rte_atomicN_* APIs as the
> corresponding __atomic intrinsics serve as replacements. I expect that at some
> point, DPDK code base will not be using rte_atomicN_* APIs.
> However, __atomic intrinsics do not support 128b wide parameters. Hence

I don't think that's correct. From the GCC docs:

"16-byte integral types are also allowed if `__int128' (see __int128) is supported by the architecture."

This works with x86 -64 -- I assume aarch64 also, but haven't confirmed.

Source: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.0/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html

> DPDK needs to write its own. Since this is the first API in that regard, I prefer that
> we start with a signature that resembles __atomic intrinsics which have been
> proven to provide best flexibility for all the platforms supported by DPDK.