On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 11:15:27AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com] > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 11:39 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>; Juhamatti Kuusisaari > > <juhamatti.kuusisaari at coriant.com>; dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib: change rte_ring dequeue to guarantee > > ordering before tail update > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:14:51AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > Hi lads, > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 11:02:33AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2016-07-23 8:05 GMT+02:00 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at > > > > > caviumnetworks.com>: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:26:50PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > >> > > Consumer queue dequeuing must be guaranteed to be done > > > > > >> > > fully before the tail is updated. This is not guaranteed > > > > > >> > > with a read barrier, changed to a write barrier just before > > > > > >> > > tail update which in > > > > practice guarantees correct order of reads and writes. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Juhamatti Kuusisaari > > > > > >> > > <juhamatti.kuusisaari at coriant.com> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Applied, thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > There was ongoing discussion on this > > > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/044168.html > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Jerin, I forgot this email. > > > > > The problem is that nobody replied to your email and you did not > > > > > nack the v2 of this patch. > > > > > > It's probably my bad. > > > I acked the patch before Jerin response, and forgot to reply later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change may not be required as it has the performance impact. > > > > > > > > > > We need to clearly understand what is the performance impact > > > > > (numbers and use cases) on one hand, and is there a real bug fixed > > > > > by this patch on the other hand? > > > > > > > > IHMO, there is no real bug here. rte_smb_rmb() provides the > > > > LOAD-STORE barrier to make sure tail pointer WRITE happens only after > > > > prior LOADS. > > > > > > Yep, from what I read at the link Jerin provided, indeed it seems > > > rte_smp_rmb() is enough for the arm arch here... > > > For ppc, as I can see both rte_smp_rmb()/rte_smp_wmb() emits the same > > > instruction. > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Wonder how big is a performance impact? > > > > With this change we need to wait for addtional STORES to be completed to > > local buffer in addtion to LOADS from ring buffers memory. > > I understand that, just wonder did you see any real performance difference?
Yeah... > Probably with ring_perf_autotest/mempool_perf_autotest or something? W/O change RTE>>ring_perf_autotest ### Testing single element and burst enq/deq ### SP/SC single enq/dequeue: 4 MP/MC single enq/dequeue: 16 SP/SC burst enq/dequeue (size: 8): 0 MP/MC burst enq/dequeue (size: 8): 2 SP/SC burst enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0 MP/MC burst enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0 ### Testing empty dequeue ### SC empty dequeue: 0.35 MC empty dequeue: 0.60 ### Testing using a single lcore ### SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 0.93 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 2.45 SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0.58 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0.97 ### Testing using two physical cores ### SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 1.89 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 4.28 SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0.90 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 1.19 Test OK RTE>> With change RTE>>ring_perf_autotest ### Testing single element and burst enq/deq ### SP/SC single enq/dequeue: 6 MP/MC single enq/dequeue: 16 SP/SC burst enq/dequeue (size: 8): 1 MP/MC burst enq/dequeue (size: 8): 2 SP/SC burst enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0 MP/MC burst enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0 ### Testing empty dequeue ### SC empty dequeue: 0.35 MC empty dequeue: 0.60 ### Testing using a single lcore ### SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 1.28 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 2.47 SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0.64 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 0.97 ### Testing using two physical cores ### SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 2.08 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 8): 4.29 SP/SC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 1.24 MP/MC bulk enq/dequeue (size: 32): 1.19 Test OK > Konstantin > > > > > > If there is a real one, I suppose we can revert the patch? > > > > Request to revert this one as their no benifts for other architectures and > > indeed it creates addtional delay in waiting for STORES to complete > > in ARM. > > Lets do the correct thing by reverting it. > > > > Jerin > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please guys make things clear and we'll revert if needed.
