> <snip>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/ring: add peek API
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The peek API allows fetching the next available object in the ring
> > > > > without dequeuing it. This helps in scenarios where dequeuing of
> > > > > objects depend on their value.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
> > > > > b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h index 2a9f768a1..d3d0d5e18 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h
> > > > > @@ -953,6 +953,36 @@ rte_ring_dequeue_burst(struct rte_ring *r,
> > > > > void
> > > > **obj_table,
> > > > > r->cons.single, available);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * Peek one object from a ring.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * The peek API allows fetching the next available object in the
> > > > > +ring
> > > > > + * without dequeuing it. This API is not multi-thread safe with
> > > > > +respect
> > > > > + * to other consumer threads.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * @param r
> > > > > + * A pointer to the ring structure.
> > > > > + * @param obj_p
> > > > > + * A pointer to a void * pointer (object) that will be filled.
> > > > > + * @return
> > > > > + * - 0: Success, object available
> > > > > + * - -ENOENT: Not enough entries in the ring.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > +static __rte_always_inline int
> > > > > +rte_ring_peek(struct rte_ring *r, void **obj_p)
> > > >
> > > > As it is not MT safe, then I think we need _sc_ in the name, to
> > > > follow other rte_ring functions naming conventions
> > > > (rte_ring_sc_peek() or so).
> > > Agree
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As a better alternative what do you think about introducing a
> > > > serialized versions of DPDK rte_ring dequeue functions?
> > > > Something like that:
> > > >
> > > > /* same as original ring dequeue, but:
> > > > * 1) move cons.head only if cons.head == const.tail
> > > > * 2) don't update cons.tail
> > > > */
> > > > unsigned int
> > > > rte_ring_serial_dequeue_bulk(struct rte_ring *r, void **obj_table,
> > > > unsigned int n,
> > > > unsigned int *available);
> > > >
> > > > /* sets both cons.head and cons.tail to cons.head + num */ void
> > > > rte_ring_serial_dequeue_finish(struct rte_ring *r, uint32_t num);
> > > >
> > > > /* resets cons.head to const.tail value */ void
> > > > rte_ring_serial_dequeue_abort(struct rte_ring *r);
> > > >
> > > > Then your dq_reclaim cycle function will look like that:
> > > >
> > > > const uint32_t nb_elt = dq->elt_size/8 + 1; uint32_t avl, n;
> > > > uintptr_t elt[nb_elt]; ...
> > > >
> > > > do {
> > > >
> > > > /* read next elem from the queue */
> > > > n = rte_ring_serial_dequeue_bulk(dq->r, elt, nb_elt, &avl);
> > > > if (n == 0)
> > > > break;
> > > >
> > > > /* wrong period, keep elem in the queue */ if
> > > > (rte_rcu_qsbr_check(dr->v,
> > > > elt[0]) != 1) {
> > > > rte_ring_serial_dequeue_abort(dq->r);
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* can reclaim, remove elem from the queue */
> > > > rte_ring_serial_dequeue_finish(dr->q, nb_elt);
> > > >
> > > > /*call reclaim function */
> > > > dr->f(dr->p, elt);
> > > >
> > > > } while (avl >= nb_elt);
> > > >
> > > > That way, I think even rte_rcu_qsbr_dq_reclaim() can be MT safe.
> > > > As long as actual reclamation callback itself is MT safe of course.
> > >
> > > I think it is a great idea. The other writers would still be polling
> > > for the current writer to update the tail or update the head. This makes
> > > it a
> > blocking solution.
> >
> > Yep, it is a blocking one.
> >
> > > We can make the other threads not poll i.e. they will quit reclaiming if
> > > they
> > see that other writers are dequeuing from the queue.
> >
> > Actually didn't think about that possibility, but yes should be possible to
> > have
> > _try_ semantics too.
> >
> > >The other way is to use per thread queues.
> > >
> > > The other requirement I see is to support unbounded-size data
> > > structures where in the data structures do not have a pre-determined
> > > number of entries. Also, currently the defer queue size is equal to the
> > > total
> > number of entries in a given data structure. There are plans to support
> > dynamically resizable defer queue. This means, memory allocation which will
> > affect the lock-free-ness of the solution.
> > >
> > > So, IMO:
> > > 1) The API should provide the capability to support different algorithms -
> > may be through some flags?
> > > 2) The requirements for the ring are pretty unique to the problem we
> > > have here (for ex: move the cons-head only if cons-tail is also the same,
> > > skip
> > polling). So, we should probably implement a ring with-in the RCU library?
> >
> > Personally, I think such serialization ring API would be useful for other
> > cases
> > too.
> > There are few cases when user need to read contents of the queue without
> > removing elements from it.
> > Let say we do use similar approach inside TLDK to implement TCP transmit
> > queue.
> > If such API would exist in DPDK we can just use it straightway, without
> > maintaining a separate one.
> ok
>
> >
> > >
> > > From the timeline perspective, adding all these capabilities would be
> > > difficult to get done with in 19.11 timeline. What I have here
> > > satisfies my current needs. I suggest that we make provisions in APIs now
> > > to
> > support all these features, but do the implementation in the coming
> > releases.
> > Does this sound ok for you?
> >
> > Not sure I understand your suggestion here...
> > Could you explain it a bit more - how new API will look like and what would
> > be left for the future.
> For this patch, I suggest we do not add any more complexity. If someone wants
> a lock-free/block-free mechanism, it is available by creating
> per thread defer queues.
>
> We push the following to the future:
> 1) Dynamically size adjustable defer queue. IMO, with this, the
> lock-free/block-free reclamation will not be available (memory allocation
> requires locking). The memory for the defer queue will be allocated/freed in
> chunks of 'size' elements as the queue grows/shrinks.
That one is fine by me.
In fact I don't know would be there a real use-case for dynamic defer queue for
rcu var...
But I suppose that's subject for another discussion.
>
> 2) Constant size defer queue with lock-free and block-free reclamation
> (single option). The defer queue will be of fixed length 'size'. If the
> queue gets full an error is returned. The user could provide a 'size' equal
> to the number of elements in a data structure to ensure queue
> never gets full.
Ok so for 19.11 what enqueue/dequeue model do you plan to support?
- MP/MC
- MP/SC
- SP/SC
- non MT at all (only same single thread can do enqueue and dequeue)
And related question:
What additional rte_ring API you plan to introduce in that case?
- None
- rte_ring_sc_peek()
- rte_ring_serial_dequeue()
>
> I would add a 'flags' field in rte_rcu_qsbr_dq_parameters and provide 2
> #defines, one for dynamically variable size defer queue and the
> other for constant size defer queue.
>
> However, IMO, using per thread defer queue is a much simpler way to achieve
> 2. It does not add any significant burden to the user either.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + uint32_t prod_tail = r->prod.tail;
> > > > > + uint32_t cons_head = r->cons.head;
> > > > > + uint32_t count = (prod_tail - cons_head) & r->mask;
> > > > > + unsigned int n = 1;
> > > > > + if (count) {
> > > > > + DEQUEUE_PTRS(r, &r[1], cons_head, obj_p, n, void *);
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > }
> > > > > #endif
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
