MLX5 PMD access ring library private data

[Jack Min]

On 2023/8/21 14:06, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
> It would be good if you could fix the email on your side to text 
> format. Comments inline.
>
Seems a wrong setting on my email client. Sorry.
>
> *From:* Jack Min <jackmin at nvidia.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2023 8:35 PM
> *To:* Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Stephen 
> Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> *Cc:* dev at dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan at nvidia.com>; 
> viacheslavo at nvidia.com; Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>; 
> Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> *Subject:* Re: MLX5 PMD access ring library private data
>
> On 2023/8/18 21:59, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
>     *From:* Jack Min <jackmin at nvidia.com> <mailto:jackmin at nvidia.com>
>     *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2023 12:57 AM
>     *To:* Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
>     <mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Stephen Hemminger
>     <stephen at networkplumber.org> <mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org>
>     *Cc:* dev at dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <matan at nvidia.com>
>     <mailto:matan at nvidia.com>; viacheslavo at nvidia.com; Tyler Retzlaff
>     <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>
>     <mailto:roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>; Wathsala Wathawana
>     Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>
>     <mailto:wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
>     <mailto:nd at arm.com>
>     *Subject:* Re: MLX5 PMD access ring library private data
>
>     On 2023/8/18 12:30, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
>           
>
>           
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>
>             From: Jack Min<jackmin at nvidia.com>  <mailto:jackmin at nvidia.com>
>
>             Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:32 PM
>
>             To: Stephen Hemminger<stephen at networkplumber.org>  <mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org>; Honnappa
>
>             Nagarahalli<Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>  <mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
>
>             Cc:dev at dpdk.org; Matan Azrad<matan at nvidia.com>  <mailto:matan at nvidia.com>;
>
>             viacheslavo at nvidia.com; Tyler Retzlaff<roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>  <mailto:roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>;
>
>             Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage<wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>  <mailto:wathsala.vithanage at arm.com>; nd
>
>             <nd at arm.com>  <mailto:nd at arm.com>
>
>             Subject: Re: MLX5 PMD access ring library private data
>
>               
>
>             On 2023/8/17 22:06, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>                 On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 05:06:20 +0000
>
>                 Honnappa Nagarahalli<Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>  <mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>  wrote:
>
>                   
>
>                     Hi Matan, Viacheslav,
>
>                            Tyler pointed out that the function
>
>             __mlx5_hws_cnt_pool_enqueue_revert is accessing the ring private structure
>
>             members (prod.head and prod.tail) directly. Even though ' struct rte_ring' is a
>
>             public structure (mainly because the library provides inline functions), the
>
>             structure members are considered private to the ring library. So, this needs to
>
>             be corrected.
>
>                       
>
>                     It looks like the function __mlx5_hws_cnt_pool_enqueue_revert is trying
>
>             to revert things that were enqueued. It is not clear to me why this
>
>             functionality is required. Can you provide the use case for this? We can
>
>             discuss possible solutions.
>
>                 How can reverting be thread safe? Consumer could have already looked at
>
>             them?
>
>               
>
>             Hey,
>
>               
>
>             In our case, this ring is SC/SP, only accessed by one thread
>
>             (enqueue/dequeue/revert).
>
>         You could implement a more simpler and more efficient (For ex: such an implementation would not need any atomic operations, would require less number of cache lines) ring for this.
>
>         Is this function being used in the dataplane?
>
>     Yes,  we can have our own version of ring (no atomic operations)
>     but basic operation are still as same as rte_ring.
>
>     Since rte ring has been well-designed and tested sufficiently, so
>     there is no strong reason to re-write a new simple version of it
>     until today :)
>
>           
>
>           
>
>               
>
>             The scenario we have "revert" is:
>
>               
>
>                We use ring to manager our HW objects (counter in this case) and for each
>
>             core (thread) has "cache" (a SC/SP ring) for sake of performance.
>
>               
>
>             1. Get objects from "cache" firstly, if cache is empty, we fetch a bulk of free
>
>             objects from global ring into cache.
>
>               
>
>             2. Put (free) objects also into "cache" firstly, if cache is full, we flush a bulk of
>
>             objects into global ring in order to make some rooms in cache.
>
>               
>
>             However, this HW object cannot be immediately reused after free. It needs
>
>             time to be reset and then can be used again.
>
>               
>
>             So when we flush cache, we want to keep the first enqueued objects still stay
>
>             there because they have more chance already be reset than the latest
>
>             enqueued objects.
>
>               
>
>             Only flush recently enqueued objects back into global ring, act as "LIFO"
>
>             behavior.
>
>               
>
>             This is why we require "revert" enqueued objects.
>
>         You could use 'rte_ring_free_count' API before you enqueue to check for available space.
>
>     Only when cache is full (rte_ring_free_count() is zero), we revert
>     X objects.
>
>     If there is still  one free slot we will not trigger revert (flush).
>
>     */[Honnappa]/* May be I was not clear in my recommendation. What I
>     am saying is, you could call ‘rte_ring_free_count’ to check if you
>     have enough space on the cache ring. If there is not enough space
>     you can enqueue the new objects on the global ring. Pseudo code below:
>
>     If (rte_ring_free_count(cache_ring) > n) {
>
>                  <enqueue n objects on cache ring>
>
>     } else {
>
>                  <enqueue n objects on global ring>
>
>     }
>
> Hey,
>
> Then next n objects will still enqueue into global ring, not into 
> cache , right? ( we enqueue nnnn objects continually)
>
> Our requirement is like this:
>
> if (rte_ring_free_count(cache_ring) > 0) {
>
>          <enqueue this object on cache ring>
>
> } else { /* cache is full */
>
>       <enqueue this object into global ring>
>
>      <move the latest n objects into global ring too>
>
> */[Honnappa] /*Understood. IMO, this is a unique requirement. Ring 
> library does not support this and is not designed for this. As per the 
> guidelines and past agreements, accessing structure members in ring 
> structures is not allowed.
>
Alright. Now I'm aware of this.

Do we have a document about this? I probably overlooked it...

> I think a simple implementation like [1] would suffice your needs.
>
> [1] 
> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230821060420.3509667-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com/
>
> }
>
Yes, mostly.

It will be better if we have a "zero-copy" version, like: 
rte_st_ring_dequeue_zc_at_head_burst_elem_start()

-Jack