[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] hash: fix rw concurrency while moving keys

Wang, Yipeng1 yipeng1.wang at intel.com
Wed Oct 3 19:56:31 CEST 2018



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:33 AM
>To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang at intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
><bruce.richardson at intel.com>
>Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
><Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Steve Capper <Steve.Capper at arm.com>; Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>; Gobriel,
>Sameh <sameh.gobriel at intel.com>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] hash: fix rw concurrency while moving keys
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Van Haaren, Harry
>> >> > > > > /**
>> >> > > > >  * Add a key to an existing hash table.
>> >> > > > >@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ rte_hash_add_key(const struct rte_hash *h,
>> >> > > > >const void
>> >> > > *key);
>> >> > > > >  *     array of user data. This value is unique for this key.
>> >> > > > >  */
>> >> > > > > int32_t
>> >> > > > >-rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const
>> >> > > > >void *key,
>> >> > > hash_sig_t sig);
>> >> > > > >+rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(struct rte_hash *h, const void
>> >> > > > >+*key,
>> >> > > hash_sig_t sig);
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > /
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I think the above changes will break ABI by changing the
>> >> > > > parameter
>> >> type?
>> >> > > Other people may know better on this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Just removing a const should not change the ABI, I believe, since
>> >> > > the const is just advisory hint to the compiler. Actual parameter
>> >> > > size and count remains unchanged so I don't believe there is an issue.
>> >> > > [ABI experts, please correct me if I'm wrong on this]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Certainly no ABI expert, but...]
>> >> >
>> >> > I think this is an API break, not ABI break.
>> >> >
>> >> > Given application code as follows, it will fail to compile - even
>> >> > though
>> >> running
>> >> > the new code as a .so wouldn't cause any issues (AFAIK).
>> >> >
>> >> > void do_hash_stuff(const struct rte_hash *h, ...) {
>> >> >     /* parameter passed in is const, but updated function prototype
>> >> > is
>> >> non-
>> >> > const */
>> >> >     rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(h, ...); }
>> >> >
>> >> > This means that we can't recompile apps against latest patch
>> >> > without application code changes, if the app was passing a const
>> >> > rte_hash struct
>> >> as
>> >> > the first parameter.
>> >> >
>> >> Agree. Do we need to do anything for this?
>> >
>> >I think we should try to avoid breaking API wherever possible.
>> >If we must, then I suppose we could follow the ABI process of a
>> >deprecation notice.
>> >
>> >From my reading of the versioning docs, it doesn't document this case:
>> >https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/versioning.html
>> >
>> >I don't recall a similar situation in DPDK previously - so I suggest
>> >you ask Tech board for input here.
>> >
>> >Hope that helps! -Harry
>> [Wang, Yipeng]
>> Honnappa, how about use a pointer to the counter in the rte_hash struct
>> instead of the counter? Will this avoid API change?
>I think it defeats the purpose of 'const' parameter to the API and provides incorrect information to the user.
>IMO, DPDK should have guidelines on how to handle the API compatibility breaks. I will send an email to tech board on this.
>We can also solve this by having counters on the bucket. I was planning to do this little bit later. I will look at the effort involved and
>may be do it now.
[Wang, Yipeng] 
I think with ABI/API change, you might need to announce it one release cycle ahead.

In the cuckoo switch paper: Scalable, High Performance Ethernet Forwarding with
CUCKOOSWITCH
it separates the version counter array and the hash table. You can strike a balance
between granularity of the version counter and the cache/memory requirement.
Is it a better way?

Another consideration is current bucket is 64-byte exactly with the partial-key-hashing.
To add another counter, we need to think about changing certain variables to still align
cache line.



More information about the dev mailing list