> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) [mailto:gavin...@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:42 AM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
> <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)
> <phil.y...@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mempool/nb_stack: add non-blocking
> stack mempool
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:16 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <gavin...@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
> > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Phil Yang (Arm Technology
> > China) <phil.y...@arm.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mempool/nb_stack: add non-
> > blocking stack mempool
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 8:21 AM
> > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <gavin...@arm.com>;
> > dev@dpdk.org;
> > > olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Ananyev,
> > Konstantin
> > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology
> > China)
> > > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)
> > > <phil.y...@arm.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mempool/nb_stack: add non-
> > blocking
> > > stack mempool
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:11:22PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) [mailto:gavin...@arm.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:06 AM
> > > > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com;
> > > > > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev,
> > > > > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology
> > China)
> > > > > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)
> > > > > <phil.y...@arm.com>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mempool/nb_stack: add
> > > > > non-blocking stack mempool
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Gage Eads
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 6:33 AM
> > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com;
> > > > > > bruce.richard...@intel.com; konstantin.anan...@intel.com
> > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mempool/nb_stack: add
> > > > > > non-blocking stack mempool
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This commit adds support for non-blocking (linked list based)
> > > > > > stack mempool handler. The stack uses a 128-bit compare-and-
> > swap
> > > > > > instruction, and thus is limited to x86_64. The 128-bit CAS
> > > > > > atomically updates the stack top pointer and a modification
> > > > > > counter, which protects against the ABA problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In mempool_perf_autotest the lock-based stack outperforms the
> > non-
> > > > > > blocking handler*, however:
> > > > > > - For applications with preemptible pthreads, a lock-based stack's
> > > > > > worst-case performance (i.e. one thread being preempted while
> > > > > > holding the spinlock) is much worse than the non-blocking stack's.
> > > > > > - Using per-thread mempool caches will largely mitigate the
> > performance
> > > > > > difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Test setup: x86_64 build with default config, dual-socket
> > > > > > Xeon
> > > > > > E5-2699 v4, running on isolcpus cores with a tickless scheduler.
> > > > > > The lock-based stack's rate_persec was 1x-3.5x the
> > > > > > non-blocking
> > stack's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 4 +
> > > > > > config/common_base | 1 +
> > > > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst | 5 +
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/Makefile | 3 +
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/meson.build | 5 +
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/Makefile | 23 ++++
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/meson.build | 4 +
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/nb_lifo.h | 147
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/rte_mempool_nb_stack.c | 125
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > .../nb_stack/rte_mempool_nb_stack_version.map | 4 +
> > > > > > mk/rte.app.mk | 7 +-
> > > > > > 11 files changed, 326 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create
> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > 100644 drivers/mempool/nb_stack/Makefile create mode 100644
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/meson.build
> > > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mempool/nb_stack/nb_lifo.h
> > > > > > create mode 100644
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/rte_mempool_nb_stack.c
> > > > > > create mode 100644
> > > > > > drivers/mempool/nb_stack/rte_mempool_nb_stack_version.map
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index
> > 470f36b9c..5519d3323
> > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > > > @@ -416,6 +416,10 @@ M: Artem V. Andreev
> > > > > > <artem.andr...@oktetlabs.ru>
> > > > > > M: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > > > > > F: drivers/mempool/bucket/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +Non-blocking stack memory pool
> > > > > > +M: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com>
> > > > > > +F: drivers/mempool/nb_stack/
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bus Drivers
> > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > diff --git a/config/common_base b/config/common_base index
> > > > > > 964a6956e..8a51f36b1 100644
> > > > > > --- a/config/common_base
> > > > > > +++ b/config/common_base
> > > > > > @@ -726,6 +726,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG=n
> > #
> > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_DRIVER_MEMPOOL_BUCKET=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_RTE_DRIVER_MEMPOOL_BUCKET_SIZE_KB=64
> > > > > > +CONFIG_RTE_DRIVER_MEMPOOL_NB_STACK=y
> > > > >
> > > > > NAK, as this applies to x86_64 only, it will break arm/ppc and
> > > > > even 32bit i386 configurations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Gavin,
> > > >
> > > > This patch resolves that in the make and meson build files, which
> > ensure that
> > > the library is only built for x86-64 targets:
>
> Looking down to the changes with Makefile and meson.build, it will be compiled
> out for arm/ppc/i386. That works at least.
> But having this entry in the arm/ppc/i386 configurations is very strange,
> since
> they have no such implementations.
> Why not put it into defconfig_x86_64-native-linuxapp-icc/gcc/clang to limit
> the
> scope?
>
Certainly, that's reasonable -- it simply slipped my mind. I'll address this in
the next version.
Thanks,
Gage
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
> other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
> medium. Thank you.
