> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> 发送时间: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:48 PM
> 收件人: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> 抄送: dev@dpdk.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>
> 主题: RE: [PATCH v5 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for Rx/Tx iteration
>
>
>
> >
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> 代表 Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > 发送时间: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 8:57 PM
> > > 收件人: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> > > 抄送: dev@dpdk.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> > > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>
> > > 主题: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/5] lib/bpf: use wait event scheme for
> > > Rx/Tx iteration
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Feifei,
> > > >
> > > > > > Instead of polling for cbi->use to be updated, use wait event
> > > > > > scheme.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, delete 'const' for 'bpf_eth_cbi_wait'. This is
> > > > > > because of a compilation error:
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > ../lib/eal/include/rte_common.h:36:13: error: read-only variable
> ‘value’
> > > > > > used as ‘asm’ output
> > > > > > 36 | #define asm __asm__
> > > > > > | ^~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:66:3: note: in expansion
> > > > > > of
> > > macro ‘asm’
> > > > > > 66 | asm volatile("ldaxr %w[tmp], [%x[addr]]" \
> > > > > > | ^~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:96:3: note: in expansion
> > > > > > of macro ‘__LOAD_EXC_32’
> > > > > > 96 | __LOAD_EXC_32((src), dst, memorder) \
> > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:167:4: note: in
> > > > > > expansion of macro ‘__LOAD_EXC’
> > > > > > 167 | __LOAD_EXC((addr), value, memorder, size) \
> > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ../lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c:125:3: note: in expansion of macro
> ‘rte_wait_event’
> > > > > > 125 | rte_wait_event(&cbi->use, UINT32_MAX, ==, puse,
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wa...@arm.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c | 11 ++++-------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c index
> > > > > > 6e8248f0d6..213d44a75a 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c
> > > > > > @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ bpf_eth_cbi_unuse(struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> > > > > > * Waits till datapath finished using given callback.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > static void
> > > > > > -bpf_eth_cbi_wait(const struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> > > > > > +bpf_eth_cbi_wait(struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Konstantin
> > > > >
> > > > > For this bpf patch, I delete 'const' through this is contrary to
> > > > > what we discussed earlier. This is because if we keep
> > > > > 'constant' here and
> > > use 'rte_wait_event'
> > > > > new macro, compiler will report error. And earlier the arm
> > > > > version cannot be compiled due to I forgot enable "wfe" config
> > > > > in the meson file,
> > > so this issue can not happen before.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Honestly, I don't understand why we have to remove perfectly valid
> 'const'
> > > qualifier here.
> > > > If this macro can't be used with pointers to const (still don't
> > > > understand why), then let's just not use this macro here.
> > > > Strictly speaking I don't see much benefit here from it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - uint32_t nuse, puse;
> > > > > > + uint32_t puse;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* make sure all previous loads and stores are completed */
> > > > > > rte_smp_mb();
> > > > > > @@ -122,11 +122,8 @@ bpf_eth_cbi_wait(const struct bpf_eth_cbi
> > > > > > *cbi)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* in use, busy wait till current RX/TX iteration is finished */
> > > > > > if ((puse & BPF_ETH_CBI_INUSE) != 0) {
> > > > > > - do {
> > > > > > - rte_pause();
> > > > > > - rte_compiler_barrier();
> > > > > > - nuse = cbi->use;
> > > > > > - } while (nuse == puse);
> > > > > > + rte_wait_event(&cbi->use, UINT32_MAX, ==, puse,
> > > > > > + __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > After another thought, if we do type conversion at macro invocation time:
> > >
> > > bpf_eth_cbi_wait(const struct bpf_eth_cbi *cbi) {
> > > ...
> > > rte_wait_event((uint32_t *)&cbi->use, UINT32_MAX, ==, puse,
> > > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > >
> > > would that help?
> >
> > I try to with this and it will report compiler warning:
> > ' cast discards ‘const’ qualifier'.
>
> Something like:
> (uint32_t *)(uintptr_t)&cbi->use
> ?
I try to apply this and it is OK to fix complier warning.
Good comments and with this change I think wfe new macro
can be applied in this bpf API. Thanks.
>
> > I think this is due to that in rte_wait_event macro, we use
> > typeof(*(addr)) value = 0;
> > and value is defined as "const uint32_t", but it should be able to be
> > updated.
> > Furthermore, this reflects the limitations of the new macro, it cannot
> > be applied when 'addr' is type of 'const'. Finally, I think I should give
> > up the
> change for "bpf".
>
> Ah yes, I see.
> One trick to avoid it:
> typeof (*(addr) + 0) value;
> ...
> But it would cause integer promotion for uint16_t.
> So probably wouldn't suit you here.
I also try with this change, it can also fix our issues. But as you say,
If *addr is uint16_t, it will large its size. It is a really good suggestion
since
I'm willing to apply the last strategy.
