From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B3C4548D; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:48:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE1840DD8; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:48:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F97402B4 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:48:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10]) by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4788B2159E; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:48:07 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [PATCH v7] mempool: test performance with larger bursts Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:48:06 +0200 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F537@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH v7] mempool: test performance with larger bursts Thread-Index: AdrBgn0U4rmzMktSR8iw7kFFeccrzwAAZ6zA References: <20240121045249.22465-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <20240302200408.6419-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F359@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F50B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Bruce Richardson" Cc: , , , , X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] >=20 > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:56:00AM +0200, Morten Br=F8rup 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. > > > > -Morten > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 11.27 > > > > > > PING for review. This patch is relatively trivial. > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2024 21.04 > > > > > > > > Bursts of up to 64, 128 and 256 packets are not uncommon, so = increase > 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 = maximum > > > > number of kept objects from 512 to 32768, still in jumps of = factor 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 = seconds. > > > > > > > > Added cache guard to per-lcore stats structure. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > Acked-by: Chengwen Feng > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v7: > > > > * Increase max burst size to 256. (Inspired by Honnappa) > > > > v6: > > > > * Do not test with more lcores than available. (Thomas) > > > > v5: > > > > * Increased N, to reduce measurement overhead with large numbers = of kept > > > > objects. > > > > * Increased precision of rate_persec calculation. > > > > * Added missing cache guard to per-lcore stats structure. >=20 > 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 iterations = each > time, the difference in results should not be that great, I'd hope. The test duration annoys me too. Reducing the duration of each iteration would make the test more = sensitive to short spikes of noise, e.g. from noisy neighbors in virtual = environments. Someone once decided that 5 seconds was a good duration, and I didn't = want to challenge that. 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 max 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 bursts. > A very > quick test of the delta on my end indicates variance in the first = couple of > results of a couple of %, just. Thanks for the review and suggestions, though. >=20 > With or without this suggestion. >=20 > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson