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

[Eads, Gage]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl at arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: jerinj at marvell.com; chaozhu at linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd at arm.com>;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> olivier.matz at 6wind.com; arybchenko at solarflare.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
> Technology China) <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)
> 
> On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 19:28 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl at arm.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 1:02 PM
> > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: jerinj at marvell.com; chaozhu at linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd at arm.com>;
> > > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> > > olivier.matz at 6wind.com; arybchenko at solarflare.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
> > > Technology China) <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64
> > > only)
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 17:06 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:Ola.Liljedahl at arm.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:02 PM
> > > > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: arybchenko at solarflare.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> > > > > chaozhu at linux.vnet.ibm.com; nd <nd at arm.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > > > <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> > > > > olivier.matz at 6wind.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> > > > > <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset
> > > > > (x86-64
> > > > > only)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 11:29 -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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        | 31
> > > > > > +++++++++++
> > > > > >  lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h | 65
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 96 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..b7b90b83e 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
> > > > > > @@ -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.
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  #include <stdint.h>
> > > > > >  #include <rte_common.h>
> > > > > > +#include <rte_compat.h>
> > > > > >  #include <rte_atomic.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /*------------------------- 64 bit atomic operations
> > > > > > ------------------------ -*/ @@ -208,4 +210,33 @@ static
> > > > > > inline void rte_atomic64_clear(rte_atomic64_t *v)
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static inline int __rte_experimental
> > > > > __rte_always_inline?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +rte_atomic128_cmpset(volatile rte_int128_t *dst,
> > > > > No need to declare the location volatile. Volatile doesn't do
> > > > > what you think it does.
> > > > > https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g?t=1027
> > > > >
> > > > I made this volatile to match the existing rte_atomicN_cmpset
> > > > definitions, which presumably have a good reason for using the
> > > > keyword. Maintainers, any input here?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +		     rte_int128_t *exp,
> > > > > I would declare 'exp' const as well and document that 'exp' is
> > > > > not updated (with the old value) for a failure. The reason being
> > > > > that
> > > > > ARMv8.0/AArch64 cannot atomically read the old value without
> > > > > also writing the location and that is bad for performance
> > > > > (unnecessary writes leads to unnecessary contention and worse
> > > > > scalability). And the user must anyway read the location (in the
> > > > > start of the critical
> > > > > section) using e.g. non-atomic 64-bit reads so there isn't
> > > > > actually any requirement for an atomic 128-bit read of the location.
> > > > >
> > > > Will change in v2.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  rte_int128_t *src,
> > > > > const rte_int128_t *src?
> > > > Sure, I don't see any harm in using const.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But why are we not passing 'exp' and 'src' by value? That works
> > > > > great, even with structs. Passing by value simplifies the
> > > > > compiler's life, especially if the call is inlined. Ask a compiler developer.
> > > > I ran objdump on the nb_stack code with both approaches, and
> > > > pass-by-reference resulted in fewer overall x86_64 assembly ops.
> > > > PBV: 100 ops for push, 97 ops for pop
> > > > PBR: 92 ops for push, 84 ops for pop
> > > OK I have never checked x86_64 code generation... I have good
> > > experiences with ARM/AArch64, everything seems to be done using
> > > registers. I am surprised there is a difference.
> > >
> > > Did a quick check with lfring, passing 'src' (third param) by
> > > reference and by value. No difference in code generation on x86_64.
> > >
> > > But if you insist let's go with PBR.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (Using the in-progress v5 nb_stack code)
> > > >
> > > > Another factor -- though much less compelling -- is that with
> > > > pass-by- reference, the user can create a 16B structure and cast
> > > > it to rte_int128_t when they call rte_atomic128_cmpset, whereas
> > > > with pass-by-value they need to put that struct in a union with
> rte_int128_t.
> > > Which is what I always do nowadays... Trying to use as few casts as
> > > possible and lie to the compiler as seldom as possible. But I can
> > > see the freedom provided by taking a pointer to something and cast
> > > it it rte_int128_t ptr in the call to rte_atomic128_cmpset().
> > >
> > > Would prefer a name that is more similar to __atomic_compare_exchange().
> > > E.g.
> > > rte_atomic128_compare_exchange() (or perhaps just
> rte_atomic128_cmpxchg)?
> > > All the rte_atomicXX_cmpset() functions do not take any memory order
> > > parameters.
> > > From an Arm perspective, we are not happy with that.
> > Since the function returns a boolean success value, isn't
> > compare-and-set the appropriate term?
> I was thinking of the memory ordering parameters that __atomic_xxx builtins
> have and we want (from an Arm perspective).
> 
> GCC __atomic_compare_exchange also returns a boolean.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
> bool __atomic_compare_exchange_n (type *ptr, type *expected, type desired,
> bool weak, int success_memorder, int failure_memorder) bool
> __atomic_compare_exchange (type *ptr, type *expected, type *desired, bool
> weak, int success_memorder, int failure_memorder)
> 
> rte_atomic128_compare_exchange(rte_int128_t *dst, const rte_int128_t *exp,
> const rte_int182_t *src, bool weak, int mo_success, int mo_failure);
> 

I assumed GCC chose the name "exchange" because the builtin modifies 'exp' on failure, but I could be wrong. I'm fine with either name. Anyone else have a preference?

<snip>