[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] hash: add hash bulk lookup with hash signatures array

[Medvedkin, Vladimir]

Hi Yipeng,

On 17/03/2020 17:27, Wang, Yipeng1 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin at intel.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 5:44 AM
>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang at intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
>> <sameh.gobriel at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] hash: add hash bulk lookup with hash signatures array
>>
>> Implement rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_bulk_data() - lookup function with
>> precomputed hash signatures.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin at intel.com>
>> ---
>> --- a/lib/librte_hash/rte_hash.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_hash/rte_hash.h
>> @@ -528,6 +528,33 @@ rte_hash_lookup_bulk_data(const struct rte_hash
>> *h, const void **keys,
>>    *   Hash table to look in.
>>    * @param keys
>>    *   A pointer to a list of keys to look for.
>> + * @param sig
>> + *   A pointer to a list of precomputed hash values for keys.
>> + * @param num_keys
>> + *   How many keys are in the keys list (less than
>> RTE_HASH_LOOKUP_BULK_MAX).
>> + * @param hit_mask
>> + *   Output containing a bitmask with all successful lookups.
>> + * @param data
>> + *   Output containing array of data returned from all the successful lookups.
>> + * @return
>> + *   -EINVAL if there's an error, otherwise number of successful lookups.
>> + */
>> +__rte_experimental
>> +int
>> +rte_hash_lookup_with_hash_bulk_data(const struct rte_hash *h,
>> +		const void **keys, hash_sig_t *prim_hash,
> [Wang, Yipeng] hash_sig_t *sig
>> +		uint32_t num_keys, uint64_t *hit_mask, void *data[]);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Find multiple keys in the hash table.
> [Wang, Yipeng] ...with precomputed hash value array.
>> + * This operation is multi-thread safe with regarding to other lookup threads.
>> + * Read-write concurrency can be enabled by setting flag during
>> + * table creation.
>> + *
> [Wang, Yipeng]
> Hi, Vladimir, thanks for the patch!
>
> Besides the minor comments above, my major concern is the code duplication here.
> It is after all hundred's lines of code that in future if we want to extend features, we need
> to modify both function blocks.
>
> Have you tried to just do if-else and reuse the current code block, and measure the performance?
> If that causes performance difference, then we may justify adding the duplication, but we still
> Need to optimize the software pipelining accordingly.


Agree, I'll get rid of code duplication in v2.


>
-- 
Regards,
Vladimir