From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>, Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>, Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mempool: implement index-based per core cache Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 04:32:59 +0000 Message-ID: <DBAPR08MB5814A9A1A405D8959EF4398798919@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86CA2@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <snip> > > >>>>>>>>> Current mempool per core cache implementation is based on > > >>>>> pointer > > >>>>>>>>> For most architectures, each pointer consumes 64b Replace it > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>> index-based implementation, where in each buffer is > > >>>>>>>>> addressed > > >>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>> (pool address + index) > > >>>> > > >>>> I like Dharmik's suggestion very much. CPU cache is a critical > > >>>> and limited resource. > > >>>> > > >>>> DPDK has a tendency of using pointers where indexes could be used > > >>>> instead. I suppose pointers provide the additional flexibility of > > >>>> mixing entries from different memory pools, e.g. multiple mbuf > > >> pools. > > >>>> > > >> > > >> Agreed, thank you! > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I don't think it is going to work: > > >>>>>>>> On 64-bit systems difference between pool address and it's > > elem > > >>>>>>>> address could be bigger than 4GB. > > >>>>>>> Are you talking about a case where the memory pool size is > > >>>>>>> more > > >>>>> than 4GB? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> That is one possible scenario. > > >>>> > > >>>> That could be solved by making the index an element index instead > > of > > >> a > > >>>> pointer offset: address = (pool address + index * element size). > > >>> > > >>> Or instead of scaling the index with the element size, which is > > only > > >> known at runtime, the index could be more efficiently scaled by a > > >> compile time constant such as RTE_MEMPOOL_ALIGN (= > > >> RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE). With a cache line size of 64 byte, that would > > >> allow indexing into mempools up to 256 GB in size. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Looking at this snippet [1] from rte_mempool_op_populate_helper(), > > >> there is an ‘offset’ added to avoid objects to cross page > > boundaries. > > >> If my understanding is correct, using the index of element instead > > of a > > >> pointer offset will pose a challenge for some of the corner cases. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> for (i = 0; i < max_objs; i++) { > > >> /* avoid objects to cross page boundaries */ > > >> if (check_obj_bounds(va + off, pg_sz, total_elt_sz) > > >> < > > >> 0) { > > >> off += RTE_PTR_ALIGN_CEIL(va + off, pg_sz) - > > >> (va + off); > > >> if (flags & RTE_MEMPOOL_POPULATE_F_ALIGN_OBJ) > > >> off += total_elt_sz - > > >> (((uintptr_t)(va + off - 1) % > > >> total_elt_sz) + 1); > > >> } > > >> > > > > > > OK. Alternatively to scaling the index with a cache line size, you > > can scale it with sizeof(uintptr_t) to be able to address 32 or 16 GB > > mempools on respectively 64 bit and 32 bit architectures. Both x86 and > > ARM CPUs have instructions to access memory with an added offset > > multiplied by 4 or 8. So that should be high performance. > > > > Yes, agreed this can be done. > > Cache line size can also be used when ‘MEMPOOL_F_NO_CACHE_ALIGN’ is > > not enabled. > > On a side note, I wanted to better understand the need for having the > > 'MEMPOOL_F_NO_CACHE_ALIGN' option. > > The description of this field is misleading, and should be corrected. > The correct description would be: Don't need to align objs on cache lines. > > It is useful for mempools containing very small objects, to conserve memory. I think we can assume that mbuf pools are created with the 'MEMPOOL_F_NO_CACHE_ALIGN' flag set. With this we can use offset calculated with cache line size as the unit. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >>>>>> Another possibility - user populates mempool himself with some > > >>>>> external > > >>>>>> memory by calling rte_mempool_populate_iova() directly. > > >>>>> Is the concern that IOVA might not be contiguous for all the > > memory > > >>>>> used by the mempool? > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I suppose such situation can even occur even with normal > > >>>>>> rte_mempool_create(), though it should be a really rare one. > > >>>>> All in all, this feature needs to be configurable during compile > > >>>> time. > > >>> > > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-08 4:33 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-30 17:27 Dharmik Thakkar 2021-10-01 12:36 ` Jerin Jacob 2021-10-01 15:44 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-10-01 17:32 ` Jerin Jacob 2021-10-01 17:57 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-10-01 18:21 ` Jerin Jacob 2021-10-01 21:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2021-10-02 0:07 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-10-02 18:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2021-10-04 16:36 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-10-30 10:23 ` Morten Brørup 2021-10-31 8:14 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-03 15:12 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2021-11-03 15:52 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-04 4:42 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2021-11-04 8:04 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-08 4:32 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli [this message] 2021-11-08 7:22 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-08 15:29 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-11-08 15:39 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-08 15:46 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2021-11-08 16:03 ` Morten Brørup 2021-11-08 16:47 ` Jerin Jacob 2021-12-24 22:59 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Dharmik Thakkar 2021-12-24 22:59 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-11 2:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2022-01-13 5:17 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-13 10:37 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2022-01-19 15:32 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-21 11:25 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2022-01-21 11:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin 2022-03-24 19:51 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2021-12-25 0:16 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Morten Brørup 2022-01-07 11:15 ` Bruce Richardson 2022-01-07 11:29 ` Morten Brørup 2022-01-07 13:50 ` Bruce Richardson 2022-01-08 9:37 ` Morten Brørup 2022-01-10 6:38 ` Jerin Jacob 2022-01-13 5:31 ` Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-13 5:36 ` [PATCH v2 " Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-13 5:36 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Dharmik Thakkar 2022-01-13 10:18 ` Jerin Jacob 2022-01-20 8:21 ` Morten Brørup 2022-01-21 6:01 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli 2022-01-21 7:36 ` Morten Brørup 2022-01-24 13:05 ` Ray Kinsella 2022-01-21 9:12 ` Bruce Richardson 2022-01-23 7:13 ` Wang, Haiyue
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=DBAPR08MB5814A9A1A405D8959EF4398798919@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \ --to=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \ --cc=Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com \ --cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \ --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \ --cc=dev@dpdk.org \ --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \ --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \ --cc=nd@arm.com \ --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
DPDK patches and discussions This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \ dev@dpdk.org public-inbox-index dev Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git