On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 05:52:06PM +0100, McDaniel, Timothy wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 11:34 AM
> > To: McDaniel, Timothy <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>
> > Cc: jer...@marvell.com; dev@dpdk.org; Wires, Kent <kent.wi...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] event/dlb2: add support for single 512B write of 4
> > QEs
> >
> > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:09:55AM -0500, Timothy McDaniel wrote:
> > > On Xeon, as 512b accesses are available, movdir64 instruction is able to
> > > perform 512b read and write to DLB producer port. In order for movdir64
> > > to be able to pull its data from store buffers (store-buffer-forwarding)
> > > (before actual write), data should be in single 512b write format.
> > > This commit add change when code is built for Xeon with 512b AVX support
> > > to make single 512b write of all 4 QEs instead of 4x64b writes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Timothy McDaniel <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com>
> > > Acked-by: Kent Wires <kent.wi...@intel.com>
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Changes since V3:
> > > 1) Renamed dlb2_noavx512.c to dlb2_sve.c, and fixed up meson.build
> > > for new file name.
> > >
> > > Changes since V1:
> > > 1) Split out dlb2_event_build_hcws into two implementations, one
> > > that uses AVX512 instructions, and one that does not. Each implementation
> > > is in its own source file in order to avoid build errors if the compiler
> > > does not support the newer AVX512 instructions.
> > > 2) Update meson.build to and pull in appropriate source file based on
> > > whether the compiler supports AVX512VL
> > > 3) Check if target supports AVX512VL, and use appropriate implementation
> > > based on this runtime check.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2.c | 206 +-----------------------
> > > drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2_avx512.c | 267
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2_priv.h | 8 +
> > > drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2_sve.c | 219 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/event/dlb2/meson.build | 14 ++
> > > 5 files changed, 513 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2_avx512.c
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/event/dlb2/dlb2_sve.c
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > diff --git a/drivers/event/dlb2/meson.build
> > > b/drivers/event/dlb2/meson.build
> > > index f963589fd3..0ad4d31785 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/event/dlb2/meson.build
> > > +++ b/drivers/event/dlb2/meson.build
> > > @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ sources = files(
> > > 'dlb2_selftest.c',
> > > )
> > >
> > > +dlb2_avx512_support = false
> > > +
> > > +if dpdk_conf.has('RTE_ARCH_X86_64')
> > > + dlb2_avx512_support = (
> > > + cc.get_define('__AVX512VL__', args: machine_args) != ''
> > > + )
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > > +if dlb2_avx512_support == true
> > > + sources += files('dlb2_avx512.c')
> > > +else
> > > + sources += files('dlb2_sve.c')
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > > headers = files('rte_pmd_dlb2.h')
> > >
> > > deps += ['mbuf', 'mempool', 'ring', 'pci', 'bus_pci']
> >
> > I believe this can be improved upon further, since it still does not allow
> > a generic build to opportunistically use the AVX-512 code path.
>
> What does this mean - " generic build to opportunistically use the AVX-512
> code path"
>
> It also
> > makes the runtime check largely pointless as the whole build will have been
> > done with global AVX-512 support, meaning that the binary likely will fail
> > to run if AVX-512 is not available.
>
> If built for avx512, then that build supports using either avx512, or not.
>
No, if build for AVX-512, then the compiler can use AVX-512 instructions
anywhere in the binary, so that build can only run on AVX-512 supporting
systems.
> >
> > Instead, I'd recommend doing as other places in DPDK - such as in ACL
> > library, or i40e or ice net drivers - where we not only check the current
> > build support, but also check the compiler support. That way, even if we
> > are building for e.g. a target of AVX2, we can still build the AVX-512
> > parts using the appropriate compiler flags, and choose them
> > opportunistically at runtime.
>
> I do not understand what you are getting at here.
>
Check out net/i40e/meson.build and hopefully things may become clearer.
/Bruce
