[bpf-next,v2,1/2] xsk: update rings for load-acquire/store-release barriers

From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com>

Currently, the AF_XDP rings uses general smp_{r,w,}mb() barriers on
the kernel-side. On most modern architectures
load-acquire/store-release barriers perform better, and results in
simpler code for circular ring buffers.

This change updates the XDP socket rings to use
load-acquire/store-release barriers.

It is important to note that changing from the old smp_{r,w,}mb()
barriers, to load-acquire/store-release barriers does not break
compatibility. The old semantics work with the new one, and vice
versa.

As pointed out by "Documentation/memory-barriers.txt" in the "SMP
BARRIER PAIRING" section:

  "General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with
  most other types of barriers, albeit without multicopy atomicity.
  An acquire barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also
  pair with other barriers, including of course general barriers."

How different barriers behaves and pairs is outlined in
"tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt".

In order to make sure that compatibility is not broken, LKMM herd7
based litmus tests can be constructed and verified.

We generalize the XDP socket ring to a one entry ring, and create two
scenarios; One where the ring is full, where only the consumer can
proceed, followed by the producer. One where the ring is empty, where
only the producer can proceed, followed by the consumer. Each scenario
is then expanded to four different tests: general producer/general
consumer, general producer/acqrel consumer, acqrel producer/general
consumer, acqrel producer/acqrel consumer. In total eight tests.

The empty ring test:
  C spsc-rb+empty

  // Simple one entry ring:
  // prod cons     allowed action       prod cons
  //    0    0 =>       prod          =>   1    0
  //    0    1 =>       cons          =>   0    0
  //    1    0 =>       cons          =>   1    1
  //    1    1 =>       prod          =>   0    1

  {}

  // We start at prod==0, cons==0, data==0, i.e. nothing has been
  // written to the ring. From here only the producer can start, and
  // should write 1. Afterwards, consumer can continue and read 1 to
  // data. Can we enter state prod==1, cons==1, but consumer observed
  // the incorrect value of 0?

  P0(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
     ... producer
  }

  P1(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
     ... consumer
  }

  exists( 1:d=0 /\ prod=1 /\ cons=1 );

The full ring test:
  C spsc-rb+full

  // Simple one entry ring:
  // prod cons     allowed action       prod cons
  //    0    0 =>       prod          =>   1    0
  //    0    1 =>       cons          =>   0    0
  //    1    0 =>       cons          =>   1    1
  //    1    1 =>       prod          =>   0    1

  { prod = 1; }

  // We start at prod==1, cons==0, data==1, i.e. producer has
  // written 0, so from here only the consumer can start, and should
  // consume 0. Afterwards, producer can continue and write 1 to
  // data. Can we enter state prod==0, cons==1, but consumer observed
  // the write of 1?

  P0(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
    ... producer
  }

  P1(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
    ... consumer
  }

  exists( 1:d=1 /\ prod=0 /\ cons=1 );

where P0 and P1 are:

  P0(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
  	int p;

  	p = READ_ONCE(*prod);
  	if (READ_ONCE(*cons) == p) {
  		WRITE_ONCE(*data, 1);
  		smp_wmb();
  		WRITE_ONCE(*prod, p ^ 1);
  	}
  }

  P0(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
  	int p;

  	p = READ_ONCE(*prod);
  	if (READ_ONCE(*cons) == p) {
  		WRITE_ONCE(*data, 1);
  		smp_store_release(prod, p ^ 1);
  	}
  }

  P1(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
  	int c;
  	int d = -1;

  	c = READ_ONCE(*cons);
  	if (READ_ONCE(*prod) != c) {
  		smp_rmb();
  		d = READ_ONCE(*data);
  		smp_mb();
  		WRITE_ONCE(*cons, c ^ 1);
  	}
  }

  P1(int *prod, int *cons, int *data)
  {
  	int c;
  	int d = -1;

  	c = READ_ONCE(*cons);
  	if (smp_load_acquire(prod) != c) {
  		d = READ_ONCE(*data);
  		smp_store_release(cons, c ^ 1);
  	}
  }

The full LKMM litmus tests are found at [1].

On x86-64 systems the l2fwd AF_XDP xdpsock sample performance
increases by 1%. This is mostly due to that the smp_mb() is removed,
which is a relatively expensive operation on these
platforms. Weakly-ordered platforms, such as ARM64 might benefit even
more.

[1] https://github.com/bjoto/litmus-xsk

Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
---
 net/xdp/xsk_queue.h | 30 +++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)