Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] net/mlx4: mitigate Tx path memory barriers

[Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>]

Hi Adrien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 4:24 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] net/mlx4: mitigate Tx path memory barriers
> 
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:07:28AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Replace most of the memory barriers by compiler barriers since they
> > are all targeted to the DRAM; This improves code efficiency for
> > systems which force store order between different addresses.
> >
> > Only the doorbell record store should be protected by memory barrier
> > since it is targeted to the PCI memory domain.
> >
> > Limit pre byte count store compiler barrier for systems with cache
> > line size smaller than 64B (TXBB size).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> 
> This sounds like an interesting performance improvement, can you share the
> typical or expected amount (percentage/hard numbers) for a given use case
> as part of the commit log?
> 

Yes, it improves performance, I will share numbers.

> More comments below.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_rxtx.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_rxtx.c
> > b/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_rxtx.c index 8ea8851..482c399 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_rxtx.c
> > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ struct pv {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Make sure we read the CQE after we read the ownership
> bit.
> >  		 */
> > -		rte_rmb();
> > +		rte_io_rmb();
> 
> OK for this one since the rest of the code should not be run due to the
> condition (I'm not even sure even a compiler barrier is necessary at all here).
> 
> >  #ifndef NDEBUG
> >  		if (unlikely((cqe->owner_sr_opcode &
> MLX4_CQE_OPCODE_MASK) ==
> >  			     MLX4_CQE_OPCODE_ERROR)) {
> > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ struct pv {
> >  	 */
> >  	cq->cons_index = cons_index;
> >  	*cq->set_ci_db = rte_cpu_to_be_32(cq->cons_index &
> MLX4_CQ_DB_CI_MASK);
> > -	rte_wmb();
> > +	rte_io_wmb();
> 
> This one could be removed entirely as well, which is more or less what the
> move to a compiler barrier does. Nothing in subsequent code depends on
> this doorbell being written, so this can piggy back on any subsequent
> rte_wmb().

Yes, you right, probably this code was taken from multi thread implementation.
> 
> On the other hand in my opinion a barrier (compiler or otherwise) might be
> needed before the doorbell write, to make clear it cannot somehow be done
> earlier in case something attempts to optimize it away.
> 
I think we can remove it entirely (compiler can't optimize the ci_db store since in depends in previous code (cons_index).

> >  	sq->tail = sq->tail + nr_txbbs;
> >  	/* Update the list of packets posted for transmission. */
> >  	elts_comp -= pkts;
> > @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ static int handle_multi_segs(struct rte_mbuf *buf,
> >  		 * control segment.
> >  		 */
> >  		if ((uintptr_t)dseg & (uintptr_t)(MLX4_TXBB_SIZE - 1)) {
> > +#if RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE < 64
> >  			/*
> >  			 * Need a barrier here before writing the byte_count
> >  			 * fields to make sure that all the data is visible @@ -
> 331,6
> > +332,7 @@ static int handle_multi_segs(struct rte_mbuf *buf,
> >  			 * data, and end up sending the wrong data.
> >  			 */
> >  			rte_io_wmb();
> > +#endif /* RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE */
> 
> Interesting one.
> 
> >  			dseg->byte_count = byte_count;
> >  		} else {
> >  			/*
> > @@ -469,8 +471,7 @@ static int handle_multi_segs(struct rte_mbuf *buf,
> >  				break;
> >  			}
> >  #endif /* NDEBUG */
> > -			/* Need a barrier here before byte count store. */
> > -			rte_io_wmb();
> > +			/* Never be TXBB aligned, no need compiler barrier.
> */
> 
> The reason there was a barrier here at all was unclear, so if it's really useless,
> you don't even need to describe why.

It is because there is a barrier in multi segment similar stage.
I think it can help for future review.

> 
> >  			dseg->byte_count = rte_cpu_to_be_32(buf-
> >data_len);
> >
> >  			/* Fill the control parameters for this packet. */ @@ -
> 533,7
> > +534,7 @@ static int handle_multi_segs(struct rte_mbuf *buf,
> >  		 * setting ownership bit (because HW can start
> >  		 * executing as soon as we do).
> >  		 */
> > -		rte_wmb();
> > +		rte_io_wmb();
> 
> This one looks dangerous. A compiler barrier is not strong enough to
> guarantee the order in which CPU will execute instructions, it only makes
> sure what follows the barrier doesn't appear before it in the generated code.
> 
As I investigated, I understood that for CPUs which don't save store order between different addresses(arm,ppc), the rte_io_wmb is converted to rte_wmb.
So for thus who save it(x86) we just need the right order in compiler code because all the relevant stores are targeted to same memory domain(DRAM) and therefore also the actual store is guaranteed.
Unlike doorbell store which directed to different memory domain (PCI).
So the only place which need rte_wmb() is before doorbell write.

> Unless the comment above this barrier is wrong, this change may cause hard-
> to-debug issues down the road, you should drop it.
> 
> >  		ctrl->owner_opcode = rte_cpu_to_be_32(owner_opcode |
> >  					      ((sq->head & sq->txbb_cnt) ?
> >  						       MLX4_BIT_WQE_OWN :
> 0));
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
> 
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND

Thanks!