Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd wrapper function

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:38 PM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:48 PM
> > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd wrapper function
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 4:57 PM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:37 PM
> > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> > > > Cc: Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Xiaoyun
> > > > Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd
> > > > wrapper function
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 7:35 PM Xueming Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Added an inline common wrapper function for all fwd engines which
> > > > > do the following in common:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. get_start_cycles
> > > > > 2. rte_eth_rx_burst(...,nb_pkt_per_burst)
> > > > > 3. if rxq_share do forward_shared_rxq(), otherwise do fwd directly 4.
> > > > > get_end_cycle
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h index
> > > > > 13141dfed9..b685ac48d6 100644
> > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > > > > @@ -1022,6 +1022,30 @@ void add_tx_dynf_callback(portid_t portid);
> > > > > void remove_tx_dynf_callback(portid_t portid);  int
> > > > > update_jumbo_frame_offload(portid_t portid);
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void
> > > > > +do_burst_fwd(struct fwd_stream *fs, packet_fwd_cb fwd) {
> > > > > +       struct rte_mbuf *pkts_burst[MAX_PKT_BURST];
> > > > > +       uint16_t nb_rx;
> > > > > +       uint64_t start_tsc = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       get_start_cycles(&start_tsc);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       /*
> > > > > +        * Receive a burst of packets and forward them.
> > > > > +        */
> > > > > +       nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(fs->rx_port, fs->rx_queue,
> > > > > +                       pkts_burst, nb_pkt_per_burst);
> > > > > +       inc_rx_burst_stats(fs, nb_rx);
> > > > > +       if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0))
> > > > > +               return;
> > > > > +       if (unlikely(rxq_share > 0))
> > > >
> > > > See below. It reads a global memory.
> > > >
> > > > > +               forward_shared_rxq(fs, nb_rx, pkts_burst, fwd);
> > > > > +       else
> > > > > +               (*fwd)(fs, nb_rx, pkts_burst);
> > > >
> > > > New function pointer in fastpath.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, We should not create performance regression for the existing forward engine.
> > > > Can we have a new forward engine just for shared memory testing?
> > >
> > > Yes, fully aware of the performance concern, the global could be defined around record_core_cycles to minimize the impacts.
> > > Based on test data, the impacts almost invisible in legacy mode.
> >
> > Are you saying there is zero % regression? If not, could you share the data?
>
> Almost zero, here is a quick single core result of rxonly:
>         32.2Mpps, 58.9cycles/packet
> Revert the patch to rxonly.c:
>         32.1Mpps 59.9cycles/packet
> The result doesn't make sense and I realized that I used batch mbuf free, apply it now:
>         32.2Mpps, 58.9cycles/packet
> There were small digit jumps between testpmd restart, I picked the best one.
> The result is almost same, seems the cost of each packet is small enough.
> BTW, I'm testing with default burst size and queue depth.

I tested this on octeontx2 with iofwd with single core with 100Gbps
Without this patch - 73.5mpps
With this patch - 72.8 mpps

We are taking the shared queue runtime option without a separate fwd engine.
and to have zero performance impact and no compile time flag
Then I think, only way to have a function template .
Example change to outline function template principle.

static inline
__pkt_burst_io_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs, const u64 flag)
{

Introduce new checks under
if (flags & SHARED_QUEUE)


}

Have two versions of io_fwd_engine.packet_fwd per engine.

- first version
static pkt_burst_io_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
{
        return __pkt_burst_io_forward(fs, 0);
}

- Second version
static pkt_burst_io_forward_shared_queue(struct fwd_stream *fs)
{
        return __pkt_burst_io_forward(fs, SHARED_QUEUE);
}


Update io_fwd_engine.packet_fwd in slowpath to respective version
based on offload.

If shared offoad is not selected, pkt_burst_io_forward() will be selected and
__pkt_burst_io_forward() will be a compile time version of
!SHARED_QUEUE aka same as existing coe.

>
> >
> > >
> > > From test perspective, better to have all forward engine to verify
> > > shared rxq, test team want to run the regression with less impacts. Hope to have a solution to utilize all forwarding engines
> > seamlessly.
> >
> > Yes. it good goal. testpmd forward performance using as synthetic bench everyone.
> > I think, we are aligned to not have any regression for the generic forward engine.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +       get_end_cycles(fs, start_tsc); }
> > > > > +
> > > > >  /*
> > > > >   * Work-around of a compilation error with ICC on invocations of the
> > > > >   * rte_be_to_cpu_16() function.
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >