[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] bitmap: add create bitmap with all bits set

Dumitrescu, Cristian cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com
Thu Apr 9 16:16:03 CEST 2020


Hi Sunaming,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at mellanox.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:06 AM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; amo at semihalf.com
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] bitmap: add create bitmap with all bits set
> 
> Currently, in the case to use bitmap as resource allocator, after
> bitmap creation, all the bitmap bits should be set to indicate the
> bit available. Every time when allocate one bit, search for the set
> bits and clear it to make it in use.
> 
> Add a new rte_bitmap_init_with_all_set() function to have a quick
> fill up the bitmap bits.
> 
> Comparing with the case create the bitmap as empty and set the bitmap
> one by one, the new function costs less cycles.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at mellanox.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bitmap.h | 113
> ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bitmap.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bitmap.h
> index 6b846f2..740076b 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bitmap.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bitmap.h
> @@ -136,6 +136,40 @@ struct rte_bitmap {
>  	bmp->go2 = 0;
>  }
> 
> +static inline struct rte_bitmap *
> +__rte_bitmap_init(uint32_t n_bits, uint8_t *mem, uint32_t mem_size)
> +{
> +	struct rte_bitmap *bmp;
> +	uint32_t array1_byte_offset, array1_slabs;
> +	uint32_t array2_byte_offset, array2_slabs;
> +	uint32_t size;
> +
> +	/* Check input arguments */
> +	if (n_bits == 0)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	if ((mem == NULL) || (((uintptr_t) mem) &
> RTE_CACHE_LINE_MASK))
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	size = __rte_bitmap_get_memory_footprint(n_bits,
> +		&array1_byte_offset, &array1_slabs,
> +		&array2_byte_offset, &array2_slabs);
> +	if (size < mem_size)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	/* Setup bitmap */
> +	bmp = (struct rte_bitmap *) mem;
> +
> +	bmp->array1 = (uint64_t *) &mem[array1_byte_offset];
> +	bmp->array1_size = array1_slabs;
> +	bmp->array2 = (uint64_t *) &mem[array2_byte_offset];
> +	bmp->array2_size = array2_slabs;
> +
> +	__rte_bitmap_scan_init(bmp);
> +
> +	return bmp;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * Bitmap memory footprint calculation
>   *
> @@ -170,36 +204,12 @@ struct rte_bitmap {
>  rte_bitmap_init(uint32_t n_bits, uint8_t *mem, uint32_t mem_size)
>  {
>  	struct rte_bitmap *bmp;
> -	uint32_t array1_byte_offset, array1_slabs, array2_byte_offset,
> array2_slabs;
> -	uint32_t size;
> 
> -	/* Check input arguments */
> -	if (n_bits == 0) {
> -		return NULL;
> -	}
> -
> -	if ((mem == NULL) || (((uintptr_t) mem) &
> RTE_CACHE_LINE_MASK)) {
> -		return NULL;
> -	}
> -
> -	size = __rte_bitmap_get_memory_footprint(n_bits,
> -		&array1_byte_offset, &array1_slabs,
> -		&array2_byte_offset, &array2_slabs);
> -	if (size < mem_size) {
> +	bmp = __rte_bitmap_init(n_bits, mem, mem_size);
> +	if (!bmp)
>  		return NULL;
> -	}
> -
> -	/* Setup bitmap */
> -	memset(mem, 0, size);
> -	bmp = (struct rte_bitmap *) mem;
> -
> -	bmp->array1 = (uint64_t *) &mem[array1_byte_offset];
> -	bmp->array1_size = array1_slabs;
> -	bmp->array2 = (uint64_t *) &mem[array2_byte_offset];
> -	bmp->array2_size = array2_slabs;
> -
> -	__rte_bitmap_scan_init(bmp);
> -
> +	memset(bmp->array1, 0, bmp->array1_size * sizeof(uint64_t));
> +	memset(bmp->array2, 0, bmp->array2_size * sizeof(uint64_t));
>  	return bmp;
>  }
> 

Can we please leave the function rte_bitmap_init() unmodified and put all changes in the new function rte_bitmap_init_with_all_set(). I realize this means duplicating a few lines of code between the two init functions, but IMO easier to maintain going forward.

> @@ -483,6 +493,53 @@ struct rte_bitmap {
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +/**
> + * Bitmap initialization with all bits set
> + *
> + * @param n_bits
> + *   Number of pre-allocated bits in array2.
> + * @param mem
> + *   Base address of array1 and array2.
> + * @param mem_size
> + *   Minimum expected size of bitmap.
> + * @return
> + *   Handle to bitmap instance.
> + */
> +static inline struct rte_bitmap *
> +rte_bitmap_init_with_all_set(uint32_t n_bits, uint8_t *mem, uint32_t
> mem_size)
> +{
> +	uint32_t i;
> +	uint32_t slabs, array1_bits;
> +	struct rte_bitmap *bmp;
> +
> +	bmp = __rte_bitmap_init(n_bits, mem, mem_size);
> +	if (!bmp)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	array1_bits = bmp->array2_size >>
> RTE_BITMAP_CL_SLAB_SIZE_LOG2;
> +	/* Fill the arry1 slab aligned bits. */
> +	slabs = array1_bits >> RTE_BITMAP_SLAB_BIT_SIZE_LOG2;
> +	memset(bmp->array1, 0xff, slabs * sizeof(bmp->array1[0]));
> +	/* Clear the array1 left slabs. */
> +	memset(&bmp->array1[slabs], 0, (bmp->array1_size - slabs) *
> +	       sizeof(bmp->array1[0]));
> +	/* Fill the array1 middle not full set slab. */
> +	for (i = 0; i < (array1_bits & RTE_BITMAP_SLAB_BIT_MASK); i++)
> +		bmp->array1[slabs] |= 1llu << i;
> +
> +	/* Fill the arry2 slab aligned bits. */
> +	slabs = n_bits >> RTE_BITMAP_SLAB_BIT_SIZE_LOG2;
> +	memset(bmp->array2, 0xff, slabs * sizeof(bmp->array2[0]));
> +	/* Clear the array2 left slabs. */
> +	memset(&bmp->array2[slabs], 0, (bmp->array2_size - slabs) *
> +	       sizeof(bmp->array2[0]));
> +	/* Fill the array2 middle not full set slab. */
> +	for (i = 0; i < (n_bits & RTE_BITMAP_SLAB_BIT_MASK); i++)
> +		bmp->array2[slabs] |= 1llu << i;
> +
> +	return bmp;
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef __cplusplus
>  }
>  #endif
> --
> 1.8.3.1

This code is not that easy to read. This function is tricky to implement, as we basically need to correct some overhead bits in array1 and array2.

What I suggest for the layout of this function:
-call essentially the same code as rte_bitmap_init(), with the change that we set ALL the bits in array1 and array2 to 1 instead of 0
-call a new helper function to correct (set to 0) all the array2 bits  from position (index2, offset2) to the end
-call a new helper function to correct (set to 0) all the array1 bits from position (index1, offset1) to the end

What do you think?

Thanks,
Cristian


More information about the dev mailing list