On 23-Jun-21 10:55 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Richardson,
Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
Cc: Loftus, Ciara <ciara.lof...@intel.com>; Hunt, David <david.h...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/7] power_intrinsics: allow monitor checks inversion
On 21-Jun-21 1:56 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
Hi Anatoly,
Previously, the semantics of power monitor were such that we were
checking current value against the expected value, and if they matched,
then the sleep was aborted. This is somewhat inflexible, because it only
allowed us to check for a specific value.
This commit adds an option to reverse the check, so that we can have
monitor sleep aborted if the expected value *doesn't* match what's in
memory. This allows us to both implement all currently implemented
driver code, as well as support more use cases which don't easily map to
previous semantics (such as waiting on writes to AF_XDP counter value).
Since the old behavior is the default, no need to adjust existing
implementations.
Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
---
lib/eal/include/generic/rte_power_intrinsics.h | 4 ++++
lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_power_intrinsics.h
b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_power_intrinsics.h
index dddca3d41c..1006c2edfc 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_power_intrinsics.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_power_intrinsics.h
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ struct rte_power_monitor_cond {
* 4, or 8. Supplying any other value will result in
* an error.
*/
+ uint8_t invert; /**< Invert check for expected value (e.g. instead of
+ * checking if `val` matches something, check if
+ * `val` *doesn't* match a particular value)
+ */
};
/**
diff --git a/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
b/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
index 39ea9fdecd..5d944e9aa4 100644
--- a/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
+++ b/lib/eal/x86/rte_power_intrinsics.c
@@ -117,7 +117,10 @@ rte_power_monitor(const struct rte_power_monitor_cond *pmc,
const uint64_t masked = cur_value & pmc->mask;
/* if the masked value is already matching, abort */
- if (masked == pmc->val)
+ if (!pmc->invert && masked == pmc->val)
+ goto end;
+ /* same, but for inverse check */
+ if (pmc->invert && masked != pmc->val)
goto end;
}
Hmm..., such approach looks too 'patchy'...
Can we at least replace 'inver' with something like:
enum rte_power_monitor_cond_op {
_EQ, NEQ,...
};
Then at least new comparions ops can be added in future.
Even better I think would be to just leave to PMD to provide a comparison
callback.
Will make things really simple and generic:
struct rte_power_monitor_cond {
volatile void *addr;
int (*cmp)(uint64_t val);
uint8_t size;
};
And then in rte_power_monitor(...):
....
const uint64_t cur_value = __get_umwait_val(pmc->addr, pmc->size);
if (pmc->cmp(cur_value) != 0)
goto end;
....
I like the idea of a callback, but these are supposed to be
intrinsic-like functions, so putting too much into them is contrary to
their goal, and it's going to make the API hard to use in simpler cases
(e.g. when we're explicitly calling rte_power_monitor as opposed to
letting the RX callback do it for us). For example, event/dlb code calls
rte_power_monitor explicitly.
Good point, I didn't know that.
Would be interesting to see how do they use it.
To be fair, it should be possible to rewrite their code using a
callback. Perhaps adding a (void *) parameter for any custom data
related to the callback (because C doesn't have closures...), but
otherwise it should be doable, so the question isn't that it's
impossible to rewrite event/dlb code to use callbacks, it's more of an
issue with complicating usage of already-not-quite-straightforward API
even more.
It's going to be especially "fun" to do these indirect function calls
from inside transactional region on call to multi-monitor.
But the callback is not supposed to do any memory reads/writes.
Just mask/compare of the provided value with some constant.
Yeah, but with callbacks we can't really control that, can we? I mean i
guess a *sane* implementation wouldn't do that, but still, it's
theoretically possible to perform more complex checks and even touch
some unrelated data in the process.
I'm not
opposed to having a callback here, but maybe others have more thoughts
on this?
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
