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 [thread overview]
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: 52+ 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
2023-07-06 17:43 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-07-31 12:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-07-31 12:33 ` Morten Brørup
2023-07-31 14:57 ` Dharmik Jayesh 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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).