From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37959459AE; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AA440E72; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fout6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.149]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4937240150 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:40:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.phl.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6981380269; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:40:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1726490439; x=1726576839; bh=OSmcnhXCTGVDH/AzsGua8rxi/HtDv7Xqm9TcvAUoNbc=; b= go6VV+61U7ai1CxW+M7NKaXleBzuc6Du/0DXn9PVvPuMr5p6yr6lmY1i32PB84vP TnSIDp9G24ONIKPk3p2kjuSw/kIDEd77lIKgW+wspipIgshqX6cW7t5y0u3+v6wm 7YMfLLwf+lgePS7M54x4QRuIDYymSG+Sqgr5HUbVTgk7l9Qme6jOPhmKReQcKPDY UQJk4SWQWnRvt6Rum/uZm6QbRlSVFc+PQu6h6uyJ/FwHjBRSZefN6kTll8Ok6Ev5 WGwmlqi6m6EWdUOpOL1i4YDO8JZ3HxIksfjJ1r2luuzbqS8LksCoNPW7yKZz4EZk CbcdojTvjOooR/2Jnyo1DQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1726490439; x= 1726576839; bh=OSmcnhXCTGVDH/AzsGua8rxi/HtDv7Xqm9TcvAUoNbc=; b=q rpXZ9E1zeAnZl6KR4Wudc/aBwnl8/1FEkqSYQYtKVeVHIvSqOrUzyMYxJ9sejdwf XHIYyd66s4ZMICS7RgLNyJFlgRdIJfGwSRDIwdHfQPBhfqbMWMk1dLIJccuzV52O iSFwdu0VhMfknG7CCob+/PUwnoJesrsQGynfw4nqLNEEf4Dey6b/E2MhOiZoz9Fj zjJMiwA1GiLG8QLjR/mu0DHABTjVE4rOL5/xnJFntdSvWE9MmMjw56hELc3XilR6 OHDXxF60uz2W369jVnAn2Qa76V9c3nkizdTJAI23TQQZGA16EC+IZeiUsE+dZcp9 zIB5FeJgRFBF4JfN4mlAw== X-ME-Sender: <xms:RifoZjNsRB2zKVTbHvnLw4e8pNewFgQnfE4EowUEPfL5sv156fKS_g> <xme:RifoZt__UTAYrzUPSev9lE6P1VvyC390hE8s7GVzAKnKIoiScBQSQam37lLx_qXkC aLPJs2YpkMGI-e4xw> X-ME-Received: <xmr:RifoZiSkwHl07K5QdFHzx5GwXB2wk80dPXU1T0x8Euk1TRdU85MneI44Gz3oXHCjgJgD8L1Yvpot9kdG0ScBYn6pwg> X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudekhedgheegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeen ucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrg hlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegtddtleejjeegffekkeektdejvedt heevtdekiedvueeuvdeiuddvleevjeeujeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtpdhn sggprhgtphhtthhopeeipdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehmsgessh hmrghrthhshhgrrhgvshihshhtvghmshdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehhohhnnhgrphhp rgdrnhgrghgrrhgrhhgrlhhlihesrghrmhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegrnhgurhgvfi drrhihsggthhgvnhhkohesohhkthgvthhlrggsshdrrhhupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvvhes ughpughkrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepfhgvnhhgtghhvghnghifvghnsehhuhgrfigvih drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegsrhhutggvrdhrihgthhgrrhgushhonhesihhnthgvlhdr tghomh X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:RifoZnunkbj81WtM0-P-38R_yRJ80JGt_XKgxUVHBiT8Mf9oBaU3kQ> <xmx:RifoZreVJL5bUBJgc1-imubJdEhAYORsS7WDlLi6S6m4C2GAsCagsQ> <xmx:RifoZj3FsAtvLJfH38u82fhNwDT3W9tZQ4FEXV_KOQSRwVxjN4iPqw> <xmx:RifoZn9aUvj-yUPpOiyhRjyxsVv5OlYLJMyg9Vp4JnSwjYtXmqBOXw> <xmx:RyfoZjREwcni7l5xisFCrnzhgEkX2oM7B8qjqa8CN3i2yRfnCCBs3VLj> Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:40:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> To: Morten =?UTF-8?B?QnLDuHJ1cA==?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com> Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, dev@dpdk.org, fengchengwen@huawei.com, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] mempool: test performance with larger bursts Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:40:36 +0200 Message-ID: <3010150.e9J7NaK4W3@thomas> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F6E3@smartserver.smartshare.dk> References: <20240121045249.22465-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F537@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F6E3@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 13/09/2024 16:58, Morten Br=C3=B8rup: > PING for apply. >=20 > Patch has 2 acks. > And since it was signed off by a co-maintainer (myself), > I don't think an ack from the other co-maintainer (Andrew) is required. > Please correct me if I'm wrong? It's not a matter of acks. I feel we should reduce from 5 seconds to 1 second as part of this patch. But seeing there is no more comments, I suppose I should apply this version. > From: Morten Br=C3=B8rup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:56:00AM +0200, Morten Br=C3=B8rup wrote: > > > > PING (again) for review. > > > > > > > > Many applications use bursts of more than 32 packets, > > > > and some applications buffer more than 512 packets. > > > > > > > > This patch updates the mempool perf test accordingly. > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=C3=B8rup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 11.27 > > > > > > > > > > PING for review. This patch is relatively trivial. > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=C3=B8rup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2024 21.04 > > > > > > > > > > > > Bursts of up to 64, 128 and 256 packets are not uncommon, so in= crease > > > the > > > > > > maximum tested get and put burst sizes from 32 to 256. > > > > > > For convenience, also test get and put burst sizes of > > > > > > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some applications keep more than 512 objects, so increase the m= aximum > > > > > > number of kept objects from 512 to 32768, still in jumps of fac= tor > > four. > > > > > > This exceeds the typical mempool cache size of 512 objects, so = the > > test > > > > > > also exercises the mempool driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > Increased the precision of rate_persec calculation by timing the > > actual > > > > > > duration of the test, instead of assuming it took exactly 5 sec= onds. > > > > > > > > > > > > Added cache guard to per-lcore stats structure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Br=C3=B8rup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen@huawei.com> > > > > > > This looks ok to me. However, the test itself takes a very long time = to > > > run, with 5 seconds per iteration. One suggest I have is to reduce the > > > 5-seconds to 1-second - given we are looking at millions of iteration= s each > > > time, the difference in results should not be that great, I'd hope. > >=20 > > The test duration annoys me too. > >=20 > > Reducing the duration of each iteration would make the test more sensit= ive to > > short spikes of noise, e.g. from noisy neighbors in virtual environment= s. > > Someone once decided that 5 seconds was a good duration, and I didn't w= ant to > > challenge that. > >=20 > > I also considered reducing the array of tested burst sizes, by jumping = factor > > four here too; but I assume that both 32, 64, 128 and 256 are popular m= ax > > burst sizes in applications, so I decided to keep them all, instead of > > omitting 32 and 128 and only keeping 64 and 256 to represent full burst= s. > >=20 > > > A very > > > quick test of the delta on my end indicates variance in the first cou= ple of > > > results of a couple of %, just. > >=20 > > Thanks for the review and suggestions, though. > >=20 > > > > > > With or without this suggestion. > > > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>