> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:48 PM
> To: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; david.march...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/x86: cache queried CPU flags
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 12:42:01PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Rather than re-querying the HW each time a CPU flag is requested, we can
> > > just save the return value in the flags array. This should speed up
> > > repeated querying of CPU flags, and provides a workaround for a reported
> > > issue where errors are seen with constant querying of the AVX-512 CPU
> > > flag from a non-AVX VM.
> > >
> > > Bugzilla Id: 1501
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c b/lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c
> > > index 26163ab746..62e782fb4b 100644
> > > --- a/lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c
> > > +++ b/lib/eal/x86/rte_cpuflags.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > #include <errno.h>
> > > #include <stdint.h>
> > > #include <string.h>
> > > +#include <stdbool.h>
> > >
> > > #include "rte_cpuid.h"
> > >
> > > @@ -21,12 +22,14 @@ struct feature_entry {
> > > uint32_t bit; /**< cpuid register bit */
> > > #define CPU_FLAG_NAME_MAX_LEN 64
> > > char name[CPU_FLAG_NAME_MAX_LEN]; /**< String for printing */
> > > + bool has_value;
> > > + bool value;
> > > };
> > >
> > > #define FEAT_DEF(name, leaf, subleaf, reg, bit) \
> > > [RTE_CPUFLAG_##name] = {leaf, subleaf, reg, bit, #name },
> > >
> > > -const struct feature_entry rte_cpu_feature_table[] = {
> > > +struct feature_entry rte_cpu_feature_table[] = {
> > > FEAT_DEF(SSE3, 0x00000001, 0, RTE_REG_ECX, 0)
> > > FEAT_DEF(PCLMULQDQ, 0x00000001, 0, RTE_REG_ECX, 1)
> > > FEAT_DEF(DTES64, 0x00000001, 0, RTE_REG_ECX, 2)
> > > @@ -147,7 +150,7 @@ const struct feature_entry rte_cpu_feature_table[] = {
> > > int
> > > rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(enum rte_cpu_flag_t feature)
> > > {
> > > - const struct feature_entry *feat;
> > > + struct feature_entry *feat;
> > > cpuid_registers_t regs;
> > > unsigned int maxleaf;
> > >
> > > @@ -156,6 +159,8 @@ rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(enum rte_cpu_flag_t feature)
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > >
> > > feat = &rte_cpu_feature_table[feature];
> > > + if (feat->has_value)
> > > + return feat->value;
> > >
> > > if (!feat->leaf)
> > > /* This entry in the table wasn't filled out! */
> > > @@ -163,8 +168,10 @@ rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(enum rte_cpu_flag_t feature)
> > >
> > > maxleaf = __get_cpuid_max(feat->leaf & 0x80000000, NULL);
> > >
> > > - if (maxleaf < feat->leaf)
> > > - return 0;
> > > + if (maxleaf < feat->leaf) {
> > > + feat->value = 0;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > #ifdef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC
> > > __cpuidex(regs, feat->leaf, feat->subleaf);
> > > @@ -175,7 +182,10 @@ rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(enum rte_cpu_flag_t feature)
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > /* check if the feature is enabled */
> > > - return (regs[feat->reg] >> feat->bit) & 1;
> > > + feat->value = (regs[feat->reg] >> feat->bit) & 1;
> > > +out:
> > > + feat->has_value = true;
> > > + return feat->value;
> >
> > If that function can be called by 2 (or more) threads simultaneously,
> > then In theory 'feat->has_value = true;' can be reordered with
> > ' feat->value = (regs[feat->reg] >> feat->bit) & 1;' (by cpu or complier)
> > and some thread(s) can get wrong feat->value.
> > The probability of such collision is really low, but still seems not
> > impossible.
> >
>
> Well since this code is x86-specific the externally visible store ordering
> will match the instruction store ordering. Therefore, I think a compiler
> barrier is all that is necessary before feat->has_value assignment,
> correct?
Yep, seems so.
