[RFC v2 5/6] eal: add atomic bit operations

[Morten Brørup]

> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors at lysator.liu.se]
> Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2024 16.36
> 
> On 2024-04-25 12:25, Morten Brørup wrote:
> >> +#define rte_bit_atomic_test(addr, nr, memory_order)
> 	\
> >> +	_Generic((addr),						\
> >> +		 uint32_t *: __rte_bit_atomic_test32,			\
> >> +		 uint64_t *: __rte_bit_atomic_test64)(addr, nr,
> memory_order)
> >
> > I wonder if these should have RTE_ATOMIC qualifier:
> >
> > +		 RTE_ATOMIC(uint32_t) *: __rte_bit_atomic_test32,
> 		\
> > +		 RTE_ATOMIC(uint64_t) *: __rte_bit_atomic_test64)(addr, nr,
> memory_order)
> >
> >
> >> +#define __RTE_GEN_BIT_ATOMIC_TEST(size)
> 	\
> >> +	static inline bool						\
> >> +	__rte_bit_atomic_test ## size(const uint ## size ## _t *addr,
> 	\
> >
> > I wonder if the "addr" parameter should have RTE_ATOMIC qualifier:
> >
> > +	__rte_bit_atomic_test ## size(const RTE_ATOMIC(uint ## size ## _t)
> *addr,	\
> >
> > instead of casting into a_addr.
> >
> 
> Check the cover letter for the rationale for the cast.

Thanks, that clarifies it. Then...
For the series:
Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>

> 
> Where I'm at now is that I think C11 _Atomic is rather poor design. The
> assumption that an object which allows for atomic access always should
> require all operations upon it to be atomic, regardless of where it is
> in its lifetime, and which thread is accessing it, does not hold, in the
> general case.

It might be slow, but I suppose the C11 standard prioritizes correctness over performance.

It seems locks are automatically added to _Atomic types larger than what is natively supported by the architecture.
E.g. MSVC adds locks to _Atomic types larger than 8 byte. [1]

[1]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-atomics-in-visual-studio-2022-version-17-5-preview-2/

> 
> The only reason for _Atomic being as it is, as far as I can see, is to
> accommodate for ISAs which does not have the appropriate atomic machine
> instructions, and thus require a lock or some other data associated with
> the actual user-data-carrying bits. Neither GCC nor DPDK supports any
> such ISAs, to my knowledge. I suspect neither never will. So the cast
> will continue to work.

I tend to agree with you on this.

We should officially decide that DPDK treats RTE_ATOMIC types as a union of _Atomic and non-atomic, i.e. operations on RTE_ATOMIC types can be both atomic and non-atomic.

> 
> >> +				      unsigned int nr, int memory_order) \
> >> +	{								\
> >> +		RTE_ASSERT(nr < size);					\
> >> +									\
> >> +		const RTE_ATOMIC(uint ## size ## _t) *a_addr =		\
> >> +			(const RTE_ATOMIC(uint ## size ## _t) *)addr;	\
> >> +		uint ## size ## _t mask = (uint ## size ## _t)1 << nr;	\
> >> +		return rte_atomic_load_explicit(a_addr, memory_order) &
> mask; \
> >> +	}
> >
> >
> > Similar considerations regarding volatile qualifier for the "once"
> operations.
> >