[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] rcu: add RCU library supporting QSBR mechanism

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:56:32 +0000
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com> wrote:

> >   
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:20:37 -0500 Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > > > > > > > <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > > Add RCU library supporting quiescent state based
> > > > > > > > > > > memory reclamation  
> > > > > > > > > > method.  
> > > > > > > > > > > This library helps identify the quiescent state of the
> > > > > > > > > > > reader threads so that the writers can free the memory
> > > > > > > > > > > associated with the lock less data structures.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > > > > > > > > <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper at arm.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu at arm.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl at arm.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev
> > > > > > > > > > > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>  
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > After evaluating long term API/ABI issues, I think you
> > > > > > > > > > need to get rid of almost all use of inline and visible
> > > > > > > > > > structures. Yes it might be marginally slower, but you
> > > > > > > > > > thank me  
> > > > the first time you have to fix something.  
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Agree, I was planning on another version to address this
> > > > > > > > > (I am yet  
> > > > to take a look at your patch addressing the ABI).  
> > > > > > > > > The structure visibility definitely needs to be addressed.
> > > > > > > > > For the inline functions, is the plan to convert all the
> > > > > > > > > inline functions in DPDK? If yes, I think we need to
> > > > > > > > > consider the performance  
> > > > > > > > difference. May be consider L3-fwd application, change all
> > > > > > > > the  
> > > > inline functions in its path and run a test?  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Every function that is not in the direct datapath should not
> > > > > > > > be  
> > > > inline.  
> > > > > > > > Exceptions or things like rx/tx burst, ring enqueue/dequeue,
> > > > > > > > and packet alloc/free  
> > > I do not understand how DPDK can claim ABI compatibility if we have  
> > inline functions (unless we freeze any development in these inline functions
> > forever).  
> > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Plus synchronization routines: spin/rwlock/barrier, etc.
> > > > > > > I think rcu should be one of such exceptions - it is just
> > > > > > > another synchronization mechanism after all (just a bit more  
> > sophisticated).  
> > > > > > > Konstantin  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you look at the other userspace RCU, you wil see that the
> > > > > > only inlines are the rcu_read_lock,rcu_read_unlock and  
> > > > rcu_reference/rcu_assign_pointer.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The synchronization logic is all real functions.  
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, I think urcu provides both flavors:
> > > > > https://github.com/urcu/userspace-  
> > > > rcu/blob/master/include/urcu/static/  
> > > > > urcu-qsbr.h I still don't understand why we have to treat it
> > > > > differently then let say spin-lock/ticket-lock or rwlock.
> > > > > If we gone all the way to create our own version of rcu, we
> > > > > probably want it to be as fast as possible (I know that main
> > > > > speedup should come from the fact that readers don't have to wait
> > > > > for writer to finish, but still...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Konstantin
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Having locking functions inline is already a problem in current releases.
> > > > The implementation can not be improved without breaking ABI (or
> > > > doing special workarounds like lock v2)  
> > > I think ABI and inline function discussion needs to be taken up in a  
> > different thread.  
> > >
> > > Currently, I am looking to hide the structure visibility. I looked at your  
> > patch [1], it is a different case than what I have in this patch. It is a pretty
> > generic use case as well (similar situation exists in other libraries). I think a
> > generic solution should be agreed upon.  
> > >
> > > If we have to hide the structure content, the handle to QS variable  
> > returned to the application needs to be opaque. I suggest using 'void *'
> > behind which any structure can be used.  
> > >
> > > typedef void * rte_rcu_qsbr_t;
> > > typedef void * rte_hash_t;
> > >
> > > But it requires typecasting.
> > >
> > > [1] http://patchwork.dpdk.org/cover/52609/  
> > 
> > C allows structure to be defined without knowing what is in it therefore.
> > 
> > typedef struct rte_rcu_qsbr rte_rcu_qsbr_t;
> > 
> > is preferred (or do it without typedef)
> > 
> > struct rte_rcu_qsbr;  
> 
> I see that rte_hash library uses the same approach (struct rte_hash in rte_hash.h, though it is marking as internal). But the ABI Laboratory tool [1] seems to be reporting incorrect numbers for this library even though the internal structure is changed.
> 
> [1] https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=compat_report&l=dpdk&v1=19.02&v2=current&obj=66794&kind=abi

The problem is rte_hash structure is exposed as part of ABI in rte_cuckoo_hash.h
This was a mistake.