From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2329D2B93 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:59:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k6so90603514wre.2 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:59:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pr+3GY09XDX6bQ0KBRmc5iGgPIJt+tdmUNvt1FbSaxQ=; b=EsTjVPgn13bKDgWEw/G2rJd1Cq0aBltmzWxz291ygfuK0ByjmZLPXQ6LmVG25QUFN4 /7W1ZXHve5DgISgZ40nkVXKKZP+Kh9AgXO2CmXg99sFE/V/Eit6zM+KXBWmNeyT48Dma RQOY8giIZx94wvrFH8D+ysmfwBtqJPAi0aZ+uTNEvFLZrrQXYP012bUfr+op2z8sXZLx yaVGhBEYc6LO8bSAr/pBVA5t/agqLY65B+5lNrxwhIzriN8nZdRTBBLqV+nN+x4ARUcr xtGHZPEdgepr7cVvhnzu3GR3Z/jY7q6/Kc9TAXfp2hOYp4MzIiIbx1vgvg6JZ2QrRdyH KCvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pr+3GY09XDX6bQ0KBRmc5iGgPIJt+tdmUNvt1FbSaxQ=; b=CDiasE+QuiGgsiPVyBepnu5Uo8dcpeSf4rCSmvpG8N6NJS+q3Tqs791ZC+pNWqs7QD +wvDwyhCkKF623vNEdLS1AC/bSEcPKI6kLwht9gfSGWv/BRCzXtjgNZ65LDFPzqq8o5O cNerdTTPuoj62SLQQ/Hx6rQMB6WfGElw/UQdFT8X3z/q5FRL+vUPn4uWFdVi17UrPKqm 03d6vPKm89+wbgouLjL5TgtMPtWBeSer7+lBYuMGva6edJzqmjbiCMHPPCcizixFmYQe 3epsUNQ4R104fQXn7+LdzMf/YtFTuRQk0rB+Kf/09Mi9V02dHCtUFVEF3/f+/iMzOMCb nXoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2yfKMuyl5KV/71Ef7lbPMJg2ItVqzXl08t44NyWaQk74brbu6Bo1rBdRpJCjJ5rF2z X-Received: by 10.28.6.6 with SMTP id 6mr1752619wmg.111.1490950773765; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from platinum (2a01cb0c03c651000226b0fffeed02fc.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:3c6:5100:226:b0ff:feed:2fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x127sm2060656wmf.31.2017.03.31.01.59.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:59:25 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Bruce Richardson Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "jblunck@infradead.org" , "nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" Message-ID: <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> In-Reply-To: <20170331084139.GB7668@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170329175629.68810924@platinum> <20170329200923.GA11516@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170330093108.GA10652@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170330140236.0d2ebac8@platinum> <20170330122305.GA14272@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2A51@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2A6E@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2DD8@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170331102610.3f82e21e@platinum> <20170331084139.GB7668@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:59:34 -0000 On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:00:49 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:23 PM > > > > > > To: Olivier Matz > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin ; mb@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey > > > > > > ; jblunck@infradead.org; nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com; arybchenko@solarflare.com > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any other comment on this series? > > > > > > > > > > Can it be applied? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Olivier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume all driver maintainers have done performance analysis to check > > > > > > > > > for regressions. Perhaps they can confirm this is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the absence, of anyone else reporting performance numbers with this > > > > > > > > patchset, I ran a single-thread testpmd test using 2 x 40G ports (i40e) > > > > > > > > driver. With RX & TX descriptor ring sizes of 512 or above, I'm seeing a > > > > > > > > fairly noticable performance drop. I still need to dig in more, e.g. do > > > > > > > > an RFC2544 zero-loss test, and also bisect the patchset to see what > > > > > > > > parts may be causing the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone else tried any other drivers or systems to see what the perf > > > > > > > > impact of this set may be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did, of course. I didn't see any noticeable performance drop on > > > > > > > ixgbe (4 NICs, one port per NIC, 1 core). I can replay the test with > > > > > > > current version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt you did some perf testing! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the regression I see is limited to i40e driver. I've confirmed I > > > > > > still see it with that driver in zero-loss tests, so next step is to try > > > > > > and localise what change in the patchset is causing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, though, I think we should see acks or other comments from > > > > > > driver maintainers at least confirming that they have tested. You cannot > > > > > > be held responsible for testing every DPDK driver before you submit work > > > > > > like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I also see a regression. > > > > > Did a quick flood test on 2.8 GHZ IVB with 4x10Gb. > > > > > > > > Sorry, forgot to mention - it is on ixgbe. > > > > So it doesn't look like i40e specific. > > > > > > > > > Observed a drop even with default testpmd RXD/TXD numbers (128/512): > > > > > from 50.8 Mpps down to 47.8 Mpps. > > > > > From what I am seeing the particular patch that causing it: > > > > > [dpdk-dev,3/9] mbuf: set mbuf fields while in pool > > > > > > > > > > cc version 5.3.1 20160406 (Red Hat 5.3.1-6) (GCC) > > > > > cmdline: > > > > > ./dpdk.org-1705-mbuf1/x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/app/testpmd --lcores='7,8' -n 4 --socket-mem='1024,0' -w 04:00.1 -w 07:00.1 -w > > > > > 0b:00.1 -w 0e:00.1 -- -i > > > > > > > > > > > After applying the patch below got nearly original numbers (though not quite) on my box. > > > dpdk.org mainline: 50.8 > > > with Olivier patch: 47.8 > > > with patch below: 50.4 > > > What I tried to do in it - avoid unnecessary updates of mbuf inside rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(). > > > For one segment per packet it seems to help. > > > Though so far I didn't try it on i40e and didn't do any testing for multi-seg scenario. > > > Konstantin > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MPPS: > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > 53.3 58.7 current > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the way) > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that > > really no impact > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms > > of cycles per packet. > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide. > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want this > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is > probably needed on it. > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next time. Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. Olivier