> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com]
> >>
> >> Extendable bucket table composes of buckets that can be linked list
> >> to current main table. When extendable bucket is enabled, the table
> >> utilization can always acheive 100%.
> >IMO, referring to this as 'table utilization' indicates an efficiency
> >about memory utilization. Please consider changing this to indicate that all
> >of
> the configured number of entries will be accommodated?
> >
> [Wang, Yipeng] Improved in V4, please check! Thanks!
>
> >> +snprintf(ext_ring_name, sizeof(ext_ring_name), "HT_EXT_%s",
> >> +params-
> >> >name);
> >Can be inside the if statement below.
> [Wang, Yipeng] Done in V3, Thanks!
> >
> >> +/* Populate ext bkt ring. We reserve 0 similar to the
> >> + * key-data slot, just in case in future we want to
> >> + * use bucket index for the linked list and 0 means NULL
> >> + * for next bucket
> >> + */
> >> +for (i = 1; i <= num_buckets; i++)
> >Since, the bucket index 0 is reserved, should be 'i < num_buckets'
> [Wang, Yipeng] So the bucket array is from 0 to num_buckets - 1, and the
> index Is from 1 to num_buckets. So I guess reserving 0 means reserving the
> index 0 but not reduce the usable bucket count.
> So I guess we still need to enqueue index of 1 to num_buckets into the free
> Bucket ring for use?
I understand it now. I mis-read the 'similar to the key-data slot' comment. I
see that the changes are correct.
Minor comment, I am not particular: I think it makes sense to change it to the
same logic followed for key-data slot. i.e. allocate an extra bucket.
> >
> >> rte_free(h->key_store);
> >> rte_free(h->buckets);
> >Add rte_free(h->buckets_ext);
> [Wang, Yipeng] Done in V3, thanks!
> >
> >> +for (i = 1; i < h->num_buckets + 1; i++)
Minor comment:
If we are not changing the logic, I suggest we change the for loop as follows
(like it is done earlier)
for (i = 1; i <= h->num_buckets; i++)
> >Index 0 is reserved as per the comments. Condition should be 'i < h-
> >num_buckets'.
> [Wang, Yipeng] Similar to previous one, I guess we still need the number of
> num_buckets index To be inserted in the ring.
> >
> >> +bkt_id = (uint32_t)((uintptr_t)ext_bkt_id) - 1;
> >If index 0 is reserved, -1 is not required.
> >
> [Wang, Yipeng] Similar to previous one, bkt_id is the subscript to the array
> so
> it ranges from 0 to num_bucket - 1.
> While the index is ranged from 1 to num_bucket. So I guess every time we got
> a bucket index we need to -1 To get the bucket array subscript.
> >> +if (tobe_removed_bkt) {
> >> +uint32_t index = tobe_removed_bkt - h->buckets_ext + 1;
> >No need to increase the index by 1 if entry 0 is reserved.
> >
> [Wang, Yipeng] Similar to previous one.
> >> @@ -1308,10 +1519,13 @@ rte_hash_iterate(const struct rte_hash *h,
> >> const void **key, void **data, uint32
> >>
> >> RETURN_IF_TRUE(((h == NULL) || (next == NULL)), -EINVAL);
> >>
> >> -const uint32_t total_entries = h->num_buckets *
> >> RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
> >> +const uint32_t total_entries_main = h->num_buckets *
> >> +
> >> RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
> >> +const uint32_t total_entries = total_entries_main << 1;
> >> +
> >> /* Out of bounds */
> >Minor: update the comment to reflect the new code.
> [Wang, Yipeng] Done in V4, thanks!
> >
> >> @@ -1341,4 +1555,32 @@ rte_hash_iterate(const struct rte_hash *h,
> >> const void **key, void **data, uint32 (*next)++;
> >>
> >> return position - 1;
> >> +
> >> +extend_table:
> >> +/* Out of bounds */
> >> +if (*next >= total_entries || !h->ext_table_support) return -ENOENT;
> >> +
> >> +bucket_idx = (*next - total_entries_main) /
> >> RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
> >> +idx = (*next - total_entries_main) % RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
> >> +
> >> +while (h->buckets_ext[bucket_idx].key_idx[idx] == EMPTY_SLOT) {
> >> +(*next)++; if (*next == total_entries) return -ENOENT; bucket_idx =
> >> +(*next - total_entries_main) / RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES; idx = (*next
> >> +- total_entries_main) %
> >> RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
> >> +}
> >> +/* Get position of entry in key table */ position =
> >> +h->buckets_ext[bucket_idx].key_idx[idx];
> >There is a possibility that 'position' is not the same value read in
> >the while loop. It presents a problem if 'position' becomes EMPTY_SLOT.
> >'position' should be read as part of the while loop. Since it is 32b value,
> >it
> should be atomic on most platforms. This issue applies to existing code as
> well.
> >
> [Wang, Yipeng] I agree. I add a new bug fix commit to fix this in V4.
> Basically I
> just extend the current critical region to cover The while loop. Please check
> if
> that works. Thanks.
>
> >__hash_rw_reader_lock(h) required
> >> +next_key = (struct rte_hash_key *) ((char *)h->key_store + position
> >> +* h->key_entry_size);
> >> +/* Return key and data */
> >> +*key = next_key->key;
> >> +*data = next_key->pdata;
> >> +
> >__hash_rw_reader_unlock(h) required
> [Wang, Yipeng] Agree, done in V4. Thanks!
> >
