patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
To: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
Cc: "Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
	"Sagi Grimberg" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org,
	"Alexander Solganik" <solganik@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix Tx doorbell memory barrier
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:49:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171024064916.tnmzxzjs5ov6yct5@laranjeiro-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171023172408.GA19208@yongseok-MBP.local>

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:24:09AM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> > Yongseok, Sagi, my small contribution to this discussion,
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 03:01:04PM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:46:53PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Configuring UAR as IO-mapped makes maximum throughput decline by noticeable
> > > > > amount. If UAR is configured as write-combining register, a write memory
> > > > > barrier is needed on ringing a doorbell. rte_wmb() is mostly effective when
> > > > > the size of a burst is comparatively small.
> > > > 
> > > > Personally I don't think that the flag is really a good interface
> > > > choice. But also I'm not convinced that its dependent on the burst size.
> > > > 
> > > > What guarantees that even for larger bursts the mmio write was flushed?
> > > > it comes after a set of writes that were flushed prior to the db update
> > > > and its not guaranteed that the application will immediately have more
> > > > data to trigger this writes to flush.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I already knew the concern. I don't know you were aware but that can only
> > > happen when burst size is exactly multiple of 32 in the vectorized Tx. If you
> > > look at the mlx5_tx_burst_raw_vec(), every Tx bursts having more than 32 packets
> > > will be calling txq_burst_v() more than one time. For example, if pkts_n is 45,
> > > then it will firstly call txq_burst_v(32) and txq_burst_v(13) will follow with
> > > setting barrier at the end. The only pitfall is when pkts_n is exactly multiple
> > > of 32, e.g. 32, 64, 96 and so on. This shall not be likely when an app is
> > > forwarding packets and the rate is low (if packet rate is high, we are good).
> > >
> > > So, the only possible case of it is when an app generates traffic at
> > > comparatively low rate in bursty way with burst size being multiple of 32.
> > 
> > A routing application will consume more than the 50 cycles the PMD needs
> > to process such burst.  It is not a rare case, it is the real one,
> > routing lookup table, parsing the packet to find the layers, modifying
> > them (decreasing the TTL, changing addresses and updating the checksum)
> > is not something fast.
> > The probability to have a full 32 packets burst entering in the PMD is
> > something "normal".
> 
> Right. There could be more common cases of skipping the barrier. And that's a
> good example. But my point here is to give more options to users, not to defend
> all the possible singular cases. If an app is processing packets in bursty way,
> it is already compromise between latency and throughput. Like you mentioned
> below, that's one of design goals of DPDK. If latency is so critical, it would
> be better to use interrupt driven processing in kernel context.
> 
> Back to original issue, MLX5 PMD had unreasonably high max latency, especially
> with low rate of traffic while min/avg was okay and this could be considered as
> a critical bug. This sort of patches are to resolve that issue, not to improve
> its overall latency results.
> 
> [...]
> > > Before sending out this patch, I've done RFC2544 latency tests with Ixia and the
> > > result was as good as before (actually same). That's why we think it is a good
> > > compromise. 
> > 
> > You cannot do that with testpmd, it does not match the real application
> > behavior as it receives a burst of packets and send them back without
> > touching them.  An application will at least process/route all received
> > packets to some other destination or port.  The send action will only be
> > triggered when the whole routing process is finished to maximize the
> > burst sizes.  According to the traffic, the latency will change.
> > From what I know, we don't have such kind of example/tool in DPDK.
> 
> I wasn't saying that the test with testpmd represented real time use-cases

I certain of that, but it is mostly because I know how you work, others
DPDK contributors entering in this thread, may understand this ;).

> but I just wanted to verify this patch is effective to resolve the
> original issue.
> Again, this isn't a patch for latency enhancement but to resolve the issue.
>
> And I think I should also change documentation to address the option
> (MLX5_SHUT_UP_BF=1) for v2, unless there's objection.

If letting it has a huge impact on the throughput performance and it is
the reason why the PMD won't set it in the future, it should be
documented to let users embed it in their environment. You can also
provide some information about the impact of activating such behavior.

Thanks,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-24  6:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-22  8:00 [dpdk-stable] " Yongseok Koh
2017-10-22  9:46 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Sagi Grimberg
2017-10-22 22:01   ` Yongseok Koh
2017-10-23  7:50     ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-10-23 17:24       ` Yongseok Koh
2017-10-24  6:49         ` Nélio Laranjeiro [this message]
2017-10-23  7:00 ` [dpdk-stable] " Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-10-25  0:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Yongseok Koh
2017-10-25  9:19   ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-10-25 21:34     ` Ferruh Yigit

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=20171024064916.tnmzxzjs5ov6yct5@laranjeiro-vm \
    --to=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
    --cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=solganik@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=yskoh@mellanox.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).