Re: [dpdk-dev] atomic operations

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

05/07/2021 09:00, Ruifeng Wang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 03/07/2021 13:29, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > In the deprecation notices of DPDK 21.05, we can still read this:
> > > "
> > > * rte_atomicNN_xxx: These APIs do not take memory order parameter.
> > This does
> > >   not allow for writing optimized code for all the CPU architectures
> > supported
> > >   in DPDK. DPDK will adopt C11 atomic operations semantics and provide
> > wrappers
> > >   using C11 atomic built-ins. These wrappers must be used for patches that
> > >   need to be merged in 20.08 onwards. This change will not introduce any
> > >   performance degradation.
> > >
> > > * rte_smp_*mb: These APIs provide full barrier functionality. However,
> > many
> > >   use cases do not require full barriers. To support such use cases, DPDK will
> > >   adopt C11 barrier semantics and provide wrappers using C11 atomic built-
> > ins.
> > >   These wrappers must be used for patches that need to be merged in
> > 20.08
> > >   onwards. This change will not introduce any performance degradation.
> > > "
> > 
> > The only new wrapper is rte_atomic_thread_fence(). What else?
> 
> Yes. The decision was to use GCC atomic built-ins directly. 
> And rte_atomic_thread_fence() is an exception. It is a wrapper of __atomic_thread_fence(), because mem order __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST has an optimized implementation for x86.

Then above deprecation is wrong.

> > We are missing clear recommendations.
> > 
> > > Should we keep these notifications forever?
> 
> Targeting to obsolete APIs rte_atomicNN_xxx and rte_smp_*mb. 
> Arm is working on replace occurrences with equivalent atomic built-ins.
> There is still a lot work to do in drivers.

This is an ongoing work.
In the meantime we need clear recommendation what to use.

> > > It is very difficult to find which wrapper to use.
> > 
> > We should make function names explicit instead of "These".
> > 
> > > This is the guide we have:
> > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/writing_efficient_code.html#loc
> > > ks-and-atomic-operations
> > > There are 2 blog posts:
> > > https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-
> > model/
> > > https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/06/09/reader-writer-concurrency/
> > >
> > > Basically it says we should use "__atomic builtins" but there is
> > > example for simple situations like counters, memory barriers, etc.
> > 
> > Precision: I meant "there is *no* example".
> > 
> > > Please who could work on improving the documentation?
> 
> Agree that the documentation needs improve.
> Add link to list of atomic built-ins and the above mentioned blog posts can be part of the improvement.

It should be more than a link.
We need to know when to use what.

First thing, please fix the deprecation notice.

> > One simple example: increment a counter atomically.
> > __atomic_fetch_add(&counter, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); or
> > __atomic_add_fetch(&counter, 1, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);

I really hate how atomics are "documented" in GCC doc.
For instance, it doesn't say what is returned (old or new value) in above functions.