> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:48 PM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <gavin...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; chao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
> jer...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; nd <n...@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] eal: add 128-bit cmpset (x86-64 only)
>
> >
> > This operation can be used for non-blocking algorithms, such as a non-
> > blocking stack or ring.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h | 31 +++++++++++
> > lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h | 65
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > index fd2ec9c53..b7b90b83e 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_atomic_64.h
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > /*
> > * Inspired from FreeBSD src/sys/amd64/include/atomic.h
> > * Copyright (c) 1998 Doug Rabson
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Intel Corporation
> > * All rights reserved.
> > */
> >
> > @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@
> >
> > #include <stdint.h>
> > #include <rte_common.h>
> > +#include <rte_compat.h>
> > #include <rte_atomic.h>
> >
> > /*------------------------- 64 bit atomic operations
> > -------------------------*/ @@ -
> > 208,4 +210,33 @@ static inline void rte_atomic64_clear(rte_atomic64_t
> > *v) } #endif
> >
> > +static inline int __rte_experimental
> > +rte_atomic128_cmpset(volatile rte_int128_t *dst,
> Does it make sense to call is rte_atomic128_compare_exchange (or
> ..._cmp_xchg) to indicate it is a compare-exchange operation?
>
Good point, though for v2 I'm planning to change this to true cmpset semantics
(no update to exp on failure). See Ola's reply for the justification.
> > + rte_int128_t *exp, rte_int128_t *src,
> > + unsigned int weak,
> > + enum rte_atomic_memmodel_t success,
> > + enum rte_atomic_memmodel_t failure) {
> > + RTE_SET_USED(weak);
> > + RTE_SET_USED(success);
> > + RTE_SET_USED(failure);
> > + uint8_t res;
> > +
> > + asm volatile (
> > + MPLOCKED
> > + "cmpxchg16b %[dst];"
> > + " sete %[res]"
> > + : [dst] "=m" (dst->val[0]),
> > + "=A" (exp->val[0]),
> > + [res] "=r" (res)
> > + : "c" (src->val[1]),
> > + "b" (src->val[0]),
> > + "m" (dst->val[0]),
> > + "d" (exp->val[1]),
> > + "a" (exp->val[0])
> > + : "memory");
> > +
> > + return res;
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif /* _RTE_ATOMIC_X86_64_H_ */
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > index b99ba4688..8d612d566 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> >
> > #include <stdint.h>
> > #include <rte_common.h>
> > +#include <rte_compat.h>
> >
> > #ifdef __DOXYGEN__
> >
> > @@ -1082,4 +1083,68 @@ static inline void
> > rte_atomic64_clear(rte_atomic64_t *v) } #endif
> >
> > +/*------------------------ 128 bit atomic operations
> > +-------------------------*/
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * 128-bit integer structure.
> > + */
> > +typedef struct {
> > + uint64_t val[2];
> > +} __rte_aligned(16) rte_int128_t;
> It looks like '__int128' is available from gcc 4.6. I think we should use
> '__int128'.
> We can have it as an internal structure for ease of programming.
>
Will add in v2.
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * Memory consistency models used in atomic operations. These control
> > +the
> > + * behavior of the operation with respect to memory barriers and
> > + * thread synchronization.
> > + *
> > + * These directly match those in the C++11 standard; for details on
> > +their
> > + * behavior, refer to the standard.
> > + */
> > +enum rte_atomic_memmodel_t {
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_RELAXED,
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_CONSUME,
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_ACQUIRE,
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_RELEASE,
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_ACQ_REL,
> > + RTE_ATOMIC_SEQ_CST,
> > +};
> IMO, we can use the GCC provided names. I do not see any advantage to
> defining our own.
>
Will change in v2. I was trying to avoid issues with GCC versions that don't
have C++11 support, but DPDK's recommended minimum version (4.9) is later than
the version that added __atomic builtins (4.7).
> > +
> > +/* Only implemented on x86-64 currently. The ifdef prevents
> > +compilation from
> > + * failing for architectures without a definition of this function.
> > + */
> Minor comment. We can skip the above comments, the #if below is pretty
> obvious.
>
Sure.
Thanks,
Gage
<snip>
