[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] kni: fix kni fifo synchronization

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:42:39 +0800
> From: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> CC: nd at arm.com, jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com,
>  kkokkilagadda at caviumnetworks.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com,
>  Gavin.Hu at arm.com
> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] kni: fix kni fifo synchronization
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4
> 

+ Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>

> 
> With existing code in kni_fifo_put, rx_q values are not being updated
> before updating fifo_write. While reading rx_q in kni_net_rx_normal,
> This is causing the sync issue on other core. The same situation happens
> in kni_fifo_get as well.
> 
> So syncing the values by adding C11 atomic memory barriers to make sure
> the values being synced before updating fifo_write and fifo_read.
> 
> Fixes: 3fc5ca2 ("kni: initial import")
> Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>
> ---
>  .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h |  5 ++++
>  lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h                      | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> index cfa9448..1fd713b 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> @@ -54,8 +54,13 @@ struct rte_kni_request {
>   * Writing should never overwrite the read position
>   */
>  struct rte_kni_fifo {
> +#ifndef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
>         volatile unsigned write;     /**< Next position to be written*/
>         volatile unsigned read;      /**< Next position to be read */
> +#else
> +       unsigned write;              /**< Next position to be written*/
> +       unsigned read;               /**< Next position to be read */
> +#endif
>         unsigned len;                /**< Circular buffer length */
>         unsigned elem_size;          /**< Pointer size - for 32/64 bit OS */
>         void *volatile buffer[];     /**< The buffer contains mbuf pointers */
> diff --git a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
> index ac26a8c..f4171a1 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
> @@ -28,8 +28,13 @@ kni_fifo_put(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num)
>  {
>         unsigned i = 0;
>         unsigned fifo_write = fifo->write;
> -       unsigned fifo_read = fifo->read;
>         unsigned new_write = fifo_write;
> +#ifdef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
> +       unsigned fifo_read = __atomic_load_n(&fifo->read,
> +                                                __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +#else
> +       unsigned fifo_read = fifo->read;
> +#endif

Correct.


> 
>         for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>                 new_write = (new_write + 1) & (fifo->len - 1);
> @@ -39,7 +44,12 @@ kni_fifo_put(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num)
>                 fifo->buffer[fifo_write] = data[i];
>                 fifo_write = new_write;
>         }
> +#ifdef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
> +       __atomic_store_n(&fifo->write, fifo_write, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> +#else
> +       rte_smp_wmb();
>         fifo->write = fifo_write;
> +#endif

Correct.
>         return i;
>  }
> 
> @@ -51,7 +61,12 @@ kni_fifo_get(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num)
>  {
>         unsigned i = 0;
>         unsigned new_read = fifo->read;
> +#ifdef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
> +       unsigned fifo_write = __atomic_load_n(&fifo->write, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +#else
>         unsigned fifo_write = fifo->write;
> +#endif

Correct.

> +
>         for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>                 if (new_read == fifo_write)
>                         break;
> @@ -59,7 +74,12 @@ kni_fifo_get(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num)
>                 data[i] = fifo->buffer[new_read];
>                 new_read = (new_read + 1) & (fifo->len - 1);
>         }
> +#ifdef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
> +       __atomic_store_n(&fifo->read, new_read, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> +#else
> +       rte_smp_wmb();
>         fifo->read = new_read;
> +#endif

Correct.

>         return i;
>  }
> 
> @@ -69,5 +89,13 @@ kni_fifo_get(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num)
>  static inline uint32_t
>  kni_fifo_count(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo)
>  {
> +#ifdef RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL
> +       unsigned fifo_write = __atomic_load_n(&fifo->write,
> +                                                 __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +       unsigned fifo_read = __atomic_load_n(&fifo->read,
> +                                                __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);

Isn't too  heavy to have two __ATOMIC_ACQUIREs? a simple rte_smp_rmb() would
be enough here. Right?
or
Do we need __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE for fifo_write case?


Other than that, I prefer to avoid ifdef clutter by introducing two
separate file just like ring C11 implementation.

I don't have strong opinion on this this part, I let KNI MAINTAINER to
decide on how to accommodate this change.

> +       return (fifo->len + fifo_write - fifo_read) & (fifo->len - 1);
> +#else
>         return (fifo->len + fifo->write - fifo->read) & (fifo->len - 1);
> +#endif
>  }
> --
> 2.7.4
>