On Thu, 9 May 2024 16:19:08 +0200 Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2024 13.37 > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2024 11.30 > > > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:43:16AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2024 22.54 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 May 2024 20:48:06 +0100 > > > > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of load tearing is crazy talk of integral types. It > > > would > > > > > break so many things. > > > > > > > It is the kind of stupid compiler thing that would send Linus > > on > > > a > > > > > rant and get > > > > > > > the GCC compiler writers in trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPDK has always favored performance over strict safety > > guard > > > > > rails everywhere. > > > > > > > Switching to making every statistic an atomic operation is not > > > in > > > > > the spirit of > > > > > > > what is required. There is no strict guarantee necessary here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I kind of agree with Stephen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mattias, Morten & Stephen, it was informative discussion. > > > But > > > > > for > > > > > > *SW drivers* stats update and reset is not core functionality > > and > > > I > > > > > > think we can be OK to get hit on corner cases, instead of > > > > > > over-engineering or making code more complex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot the case of 64 bit values on 32 bit platforms! > > > > > Mostly because haven't cared about 32 bit for years... > > > > > > > > > > The Linux kernel uses some wrappers to handle this. > > > > > On 64 bit platforms they become noop. > > > > > On 32 bit platform, they are protected by a seqlock and updates > > are > > > > > wrapped by the sequence count. > > > > > > > > > > If we go this way, then doing similar Noop on 64 bit and atomic or > > > > > seqlock > > > > > on 32 bit should be done, but in common helper. > > > > > > > > > > Looking inside FreeBSD, it looks like that has changed over the > > > years as > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > if_inc_counter > > > > > counter_u64_add > > > > > atomic_add_64 > > > > > But the counters are always per-cpu in this case. So although it > > > does > > > > > use > > > > > locked operation, will always be uncontended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: Does DPDK still actually support 32 bit on x86? Can it be > > > dropped > > > > > this cycle? > > > > > > > > We cannot drop 32 bit architecture support altogether. > > > > > > > > But, unlike the Linux kernel, DPDK doesn't need to support ancient > > 32 > > > bit architectures. > > > > If the few 32 bit architectures supported by DPDK provide non- > > tearing > > > 64 bit loads/stores, we don't need locks (in the fast path) for 64 bit > > > counters. > > > > > > > > In addition to 32 bit x86, DPDK supports ARMv7-A (a 32 bit > > > architecture) and 32 bit ARMv8. > > > > I don't think DPDK support any other 32 bit architectures. > > > > > > > > > > > > As Mattias mentioned, 32 bit x86 can use xmm registers to provide 64 > > > bit non-tearing load/store. > > > > > > > > > > Testing this a little in godbolt, I see gcc using xmm registers on 32- > > > bit > > > when updating 64-bit counters, but clang doesn't seem to do so, but > > > instead > > > does 2 stores when writing back the 64 value. (I tried with both > > > volatile > > > and non-volatile 64-bit values, just to see if volatile would > > encourage > > > clang to do a single store). > > > > > > GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/9eqKfT3hz > > > Clang: https://godbolt.org/z/PT5EqKn4c > > > > Interesting. > > I guess this can be fixed by manually implementing what GCC does. > > > > I'm more concerned about finding a high-performance (in the fast path) > > 64 bit counter solution for 32 bit ARM. > > Reading up on the topic, and continuing Bruce's experiment on Godbolt, it is > possible on 32 bit ARMv7-A too, using LDRD/STRD (Load/Store Register Dual) > instructions, which load/store 64 bit from memory into two registers at once. > > Clang is emits more efficient code without volatile. > GCC requires volatile to use STRD. > > Clang: https://godbolt.org/z/WjdTq6EKh > GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/qq9j7d4Ea > > Summing it up, it is possible to implement non-tearing 64 bit > high-performance (lockless, barrier-free) counters on the 32 bit > architectures supported by DPDK. > > But the implementation is both architecture and compiler specific. > So it seems a "64 bit counters" library would be handy. (Or a "non-tearing 64 > bit integers" library, for support of the signed variant too; but I don't > think we need that.) > We can use uint64_t as the underlying type and type cast in the library > (where needed by the specific compiler/architecture), or introduce a new > rte_ctr64_t type to ensure that accessor functions are always used and the > developer doesn't have to worry about tearing on 32 bit architectures. > > The most simple variant of such a library only provides load and store > functions. The API would look like this: > > uint64_t inline > rte_ctr64_get(const rte_ctr64_t *const ctr); > > void inline > rte_ctr64_set(rte_ctr64_t *const ctr, const uint64_t value); > > And if some CPU offers special instructions for increment or addition, faster > (regarding performance) and/or more compact (regarding instruction memory) > than a sequence of load-add-store instructions: > > void inline > rte_ctr64_inc(rte_ctr64_t *const ctr); > > void inline > rte_ctr64_add(rte_ctr64_t *const ctr, const uint64_t value); > > <feature creep> > And perhaps atomic variants of all these functions, with explicit and/or > relaxed memory ordering, for counters shared by multiple threads. > </feature creep> > This kind of what I am experimenting with but... Intend to keep the details of the counters read and update in one file and not as inlines.
