Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation

[Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:17:48 +0000
> From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, "Richardson, Bruce"
>  <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, Yerden Zhumabekov
>  <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>, "Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>,
>  "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:41 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Yerden Zhumabekov
> > <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>; Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:09:07 +0100
> > > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > CC: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Stephen Hemminger
> > >  <stephen@networkplumber.org>, Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>,
> > >  "Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
> > >  <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.1 (2017-04-11)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 04:04:11PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:18:39 +0000
> > > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > > > CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, Yerden Zhumabekov
> > > > >  <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
> > > > >  "Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
> > > > >  <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:08 AM
> > > > > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:16:44 +0000
> > > > > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, Stephen Hemminger
> > > > > > >  <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > > > > > CC: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>, "Richardson, Bruce"
> > > > > > >  <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Verkamp, Daniel"
> > > > > > >  <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:29 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > > > > > > Cc: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > > > > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:16:25 -0700
> > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > > > > > > > To: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "Richardson,
> > > > > > > > >  Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Verkamp, Daniel"
> > > > > > > > >  <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:47:43 +0600
> > > > > > > > > Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabekov@sts.kz> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 06.06.2017 19:19, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Maybe there is some deeper  reason for the >= 128-byte alignment logic in rte_ring.h?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Might be, would be good to hear opinion the author of that change.
> > > > > > > > > > >> It gives improved performance for core-2-core transfer.
> > > > > > > > > > > You mean empty cache-line(s) after prod/cons, correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > That's ok but why we can't keep them and whole rte_ring aligned on cache-line boundaries?
> > > > > > > > > > > Something like that:
> > > > > > > > > > > struct rte_ring {
> > > > > > > > > > >     ...
> > > > > > > > > > >     struct rte_ring_headtail prod __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > > > > > >     EMPTY_CACHE_LINE   __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > > > > > >     struct rte_ring_headtail cons __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > > > > > >     EMPTY_CACHE_LINE   __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm curious, can anyone explain, how does it actually affect
> > > > > > > > > > performance? Maybe we can utilize it application code?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it is because on Intel CPU's the CPU will speculatively fetch adjacent cache lines.
> > > > > > > > > If these cache lines change, then it will create false sharing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see. I think, In such cases it is better to abstract as conditional
> > > > > > > > compilation. The above logic has worst case cache memory
> > > > > > > > requirement if CPU is 128B CL and no speculative prefetch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose we can keep exactly the same logic as we have now:
> > > > > archs with 64B cache-line would have an empty cache line,
> > > > > for archs with 128B cacheline - no.
> > > > > Is that what you are looking for?
> > > >
> > > > Its valid to an arch with 128B cache-line and speculative cache prefetch.
> > > > (Cavium's recent SoCs comes with this property)
> > > > IMHO, Instead of making 128B as NOOP. We can introduce a new conditional
> > > > compilation flag(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_SPECULATIVE_PREFETCH or something like
> > > > that) to decide the empty line and I think, In future we can use
> > > > the same config for similar use cases.
> > > >
> > > > Jerin
> > > >
> > > I'd rather not make it that complicated, and definitely don't like
> > > adding in more build time config options. Initially, I had the extra
> > > padding always-present, but it was felt that it made the resulting
> > > structure too big. For those systems with 128B cachelines, is the extra
> > > 256 bytes of space per ring really a problem given modern systems have
> > > ram in the 10's of Gigs?
> > 
> > I think, RAM size does not matter here. I was referring more on L1 and L2
> > cache size(which is very limited).i.e if you fetch the unwanted
> > lines then CPU have to evict fast and it will have effect on accommodating
> > interested lines in worker loop..
> 
> Not sure I understand you here - as I know, we can't control HW speculative fetch.

Yes. But we can know in advance if a product family supports HW speculative fetch
or not. Typically a product family defines this feature in arm64 case and
we have different targets for each product family.

> It would either happen, or no depending on the actual CPU.
> The only thing we can control here - what exactly will be fetched:
> either empty cache line not used by anyone or cache-line with some data.

Yes. If we know a given CPU does not provide HW speculative fetch in
advance then we don't need to give empty line.


> Konstantin
> 
> >I am not a fan of build time options but I
> > don't really see any issue with _ARCH_ specific build time options.
> > I think, it is good. common_base can have default value if any platform/arch wants
> > to override it can override it.I don't see any harm in proving that support.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > /Bruce