On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 10:57:02AM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
>
> > > >>>Inline assembly is not supported for msvc x64 instead use
> > > >>>_{Read,Write,ReadWrite}Barrier() intrinsics.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com>
> > > >>>---
> > > >>> lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h | 4 ++++
> > > >>> lib/eal/x86/include/rte_atomic.h | 10 +++++++++-
> > > >>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>index 234b268..e973184 100644
> > > >>>--- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>+++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>@@ -116,9 +116,13 @@
> > > >>> * Guarantees that operation reordering does not occur at compile
> > > >>> time
> > > >>> * for operations directly before and after the barrier.
> > > >>> */
> > > >>>+#ifndef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC
> > > >>> #define rte_compiler_barrier() do { \
> > > >>> asm volatile ("" : : : "memory"); \
> > > >>> } while(0)
> > > >>>+#else
> > > >>>+#define rte_compiler_barrier() _ReadWriteBarrier()
> > > >>>+#endif
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /**
> > > >>> * Synchronization fence between threads based on the specified
> > > >>> memory order.
> > > >>>diff --git a/lib/eal/x86/include/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>b/lib/eal/x86/include/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>index f2ee1a9..5cce9ba 100644
> > > >>>--- a/lib/eal/x86/include/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>+++ b/lib/eal/x86/include/rte_atomic.h
> > > >>>@@ -27,9 +27,13 @@
> > > >>>
> > > >>> #define rte_rmb() _mm_lfence()
> > > >>>
> > > >>>+#ifndef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC
> > > >>> #define rte_smp_wmb() rte_compiler_barrier()
> > > >>>-
> > > >>> #define rte_smp_rmb() rte_compiler_barrier()
> > > >>>+#else
> > > >>>+#define rte_smp_wmb() _WriteBarrier()
> > > >>>+#define rte_smp_rmb() _ReadBarrier()
> > > >>>+#endif
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /*
> > > >>> * From Intel Software Development Manual; Vol 3;
> > > >>>@@ -66,11 +70,15 @@
> > > >>> static __rte_always_inline void
> > > >>> rte_smp_mb(void)
> > > >>> {
> > > >>>+#ifndef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC
> > > >>> #ifdef RTE_ARCH_I686
> > > >>> asm volatile("lock addl $0, -128(%%esp); " ::: "memory");
> > > >>> #else
> > > >>> asm volatile("lock addl $0, -128(%%rsp); " ::: "memory");
> > > >>> #endif
> > > >>>+#else
> > > >>>+ rte_compiler_barrier();
> > > >>>+#endif
> > > >>
> > > >>It doesn't look right to me: compiler_barrier is not identical to
> > > >>LOCK-ed operation,
> > > >>and is not enough to serve as a proper memory barrier for SMP.
> > > >
> > > >i think i'm confused by the macro naming here. i'll take another look
> > > >thank you for raising it.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>Another ore generic comment - do we really need to pollute all that
> > > >>code with RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC ifdefs?
> > > >>Right now we have ability to have subdir per arch (x86/arm/etc.).
> > > >>Can we treat x86+windows+msvc as a special arch?
> > > >
> > > >i asked this question previously and confirmed in the technical board
> > > >meeting. the answer i received was that the community did not want new
> > > >directory/headers introduced for compiler support matrix and i should
> > > >use #ifdef in the existing headers.
> > >
> > > Ok, can I then ask at least to minimize number of ifdefs to absolute
> > > minimum?
> >
> > in principal no objection at all, one question though is what to do with
> > comment based documentation attached to macros? e.g.
> >
> > #ifdef SOME_FOO
> > /* some documentation */
> > #define some_macro
> > #else
> > #define some_macro
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef SOME_FOO
> > /* some documentation 2 */
> > #define some_macro2
> > #else
> > #define some_macro2
> > #endif
> >
> > i can either duplicate the documentation for every define so it stays
> > "attached" or i can only document the first expansion. let me know what
> > you expect.
> >
> > so something like this?
> >
> > #ifdef SOME_FOO
> > /* some documentation */
> > #define some_macro
> > /* some documentation 2 */
> > #define some_macro2
> > #else
> > #define some_macro
> > #define some_macro2
> > #endif
> >
> > or should all documentation be duplicated? which can become a teadious
> > redundancy for anyone maintaining it. keep in mind we might have to make
> > an exception for rte_common.h because it seems doing this would be
> > really ugly there. take a look let me know.
>
> My personal preference would be to keep one documentation block for both cases
> (yes, I suppose it needs to be updated if required):
>
> /* some documentation, probably for both SOME_FOO on/off */
> #ifdef SOME_FOO
> #define some_macro
> #else
> #define some_macro
> #endif
>
>
> >
> > > It is really hard to read an follow acode that is heavily ifdefed.
> > > Let say above we probably don't need to re-define
> > > rte_smp_rmb/rte_smp_wmb, as both are boiled down to
> > > compiler_barrier(), which is already redefined.
> >
> > can you take a look at v2 of the patch and re-prescribe your advise
> > here? in v2 only the intel macros expand to the compiler barrier. though
> > i find this vexing since as you pointed out it seems they aren't
> > supposed to be compiler only barriers according to the documentation in
> > generic/rte_atomic.h they are intended to be memory barriers.
>
> Commented, pls check if I explained my thoughts clear enough there.
>
> >
> > please help me if i've goofed up in this regard.
> >
> > > Another question - could it be visa-versa approach:
> > > can we replace some inline assembly with common instincts whenever
> > > possible?
> >
> > msvc has only intrinsics and the conditional expansion for msvc is to
> > use those intrinsics, gcc doesn't generally define intrinsics for processor
> > specific code does it?
>
> AFAIK latest gcc (and clang) versions do support majority of these instincts:
> __rdtsc, _xbegin/_xend, etc.
> So my thought was - might be we can use same instincts for all compilers...
> One implication I can think about - older versions of gcc.
> But might be we can re-order things and have inlines only for these oldere
> gcc versions?
i'm going to propose if we do this we do it as a separate change later.
i fear it could turn into the following dance which seems not a lot
better given i'm sure some people will argue there is no benefit to
removing inline assembly for gcc/clang. my preference is not to get
side-tracked on refactoring with the short merge window.
#if (defined(__clang__) && clang version < x) ||
(defined(__GNUC__) && gcc version < x)
__asm(whatever...
#else
__rdtsc()
#endif
