<snip>
>
> Hi Feifei,
>
> >
> > The variable "wrk_cmd" is a signal to control threads from running and
> > stopping. When worker lcores load "wrk_cmd == WRK_CMD_RUN", they
> start
> > running and when worker lcores load "wrk_cmd == WRK_CMD_STOP",
> they
> > stop.
> >
> > For the wmb in test_mt1, no storing operations must keep the order
> > after storing "wrk_cmd". Thus the wmb is unnecessary.
>
> I think there is a bug in my original code, we should do smp_wmb() *before*
> setting wrk_cmd, not after:
>
> /* launch on all workers */
> RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_WORKER(lc) {
> arg[lc].rng = r;
> arg[lc].stats = init_stat;
> rte_eal_remote_launch(test, &arg[lc], lc);
> }
>
> /* signal worker to start test */
> + rte_smp_wmb();
> wrk_cmd = WRK_CMD_RUN;
> - rte_smp_wmb();
>
> usleep(run_time * US_PER_S);
>
>
> I still think we'd better have some synchronisation here.
> Otherwise what would prevent compiler and/or cpu to update wrk_cmd out
> of order (before _init_ phase is completed)?
> We probably can safely assume no reordering from the compiler here, as we
> have function calls straight before and after 'wrk_cmd = WRK_CMD_RUN;'
> But for consistency and easier maintenance, I still think it is better to have
> something here, after all it is not performance critical pass.
Agree that this is not performance critical.
This is more about correctness (as usually people refer to code to understand
the concepts). You can refer to video [1]. Essentially, the pthread_create has
'happens-before' behavior. i.e. all the memory operations before the
pthread_create are visible to the new thread. The rte_smp_rmb() barrier in the
thread function is not required as it reads the data that was set before the
thread was launched.
I do not know why rte_smp_wmb is required. The update to 'wrk_cmd' is seen by
the thread eventually. rte_smp_wmb does not result in update being seen
sooner/immediately.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4170&v=KeLBd2EJLOU&feature=youtu.be
>
> > For the rmb in test_worker, the parameters have been prepared when
> > worker lcores call "test_worker". It is unnessary to wait wrk_cmd to
> > be loaded, then the parameters can be loaded, So the rmb can be
> removed.
>
> It is not only about parameters loading, it is to prevent worker core to
> start
> too early.
Because 'pthread_launch' provides the 'happens-before' behavior, the worker
core will see the updates that happened before the worker was launched.
I suggest changing the commit log to provide the reasoning around
pthread_create.
>
> As I understand, your goal is to get rid of rte_smp_*() calls.
> Might be better to replace such places here with _atomic_ semantics.
> Then, as I can see, we also can get rid of 'volatile' fo wrk_cmd.
>
> > In the meanwhile, fix a typo. The note above storing "stop" into
> > "wrk_cmd" should be "stop test" rather than "start test".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > ---
> > app/test/test_ring_stress_impl.h | 5 +----
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_ring_stress_impl.h
> > b/app/test/test_ring_stress_impl.h
> > index f9ca63b90..384555ef9 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_ring_stress_impl.h
> > +++ b/app/test/test_ring_stress_impl.h
> > @@ -198,7 +198,6 @@ test_worker(void *arg, const char *fname, int32_t
> prcs)
> > fill_ring_elm(&loc_elm, lc);
> >
> > while (wrk_cmd != WRK_CMD_RUN) {
> > - rte_smp_rmb();
> > rte_pause();
> > }
> >
> > @@ -357,13 +356,11 @@ test_mt1(int (*test)(void *))
> >
> > /* signal worker to start test */
> > wrk_cmd = WRK_CMD_RUN;
> > - rte_smp_wmb();
> >
> > usleep(run_time * US_PER_S);
> >
> > - /* signal worker to start test */
> > + /* signal worker to stop test */
> > wrk_cmd = WRK_CMD_STOP;
> > - rte_smp_wmb();
> >
> > /* wait for workers and collect stats. */
> > mc = rte_lcore_id();
> > --
> > 2.17.1
