patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
Cc: "Emil Berg" <emil.berg@ericsson.com>,
	bruce.richardson@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	stable@dpdk.org, bugzilla@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org,
	onar.olsen@ericsson.com,
	"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] app/test: add cksum performance test
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:47:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YsvxpfTqZZJBI2FD@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220708125608.24532-1-mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>

Hi Mattias,

Please see few comments below.

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:56:07PM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> Add performance test for the rte_raw_cksum() function, which delegates
> the actual work to __rte_raw_cksum(), which in turn is used by other
> functions in need of Internet checksum calculation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> v2:
>   * Added __rte_unused to unused volatile variable, to keep the Intel
>     compiler happy.
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                |   1 +
>  app/test/meson.build       |   1 +
>  app/test/test_cksum_perf.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 120 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 app/test/test_cksum_perf.c
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index c923712946..2a4c99e05a 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1414,6 +1414,7 @@ Network headers
>  M: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
>  F: lib/net/
>  F: app/test/test_cksum.c
> +F: app/test/test_cksum_perf.c
>  
>  Packet CRC
>  M: Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>
> diff --git a/app/test/meson.build b/app/test/meson.build
> index 431c5bd318..191db03d1d 100644
> --- a/app/test/meson.build
> +++ b/app/test/meson.build
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ test_sources = files(
>          'test_bpf.c',
>          'test_byteorder.c',
>          'test_cksum.c',
> +        'test_cksum_perf.c',
>          'test_cmdline.c',
>          'test_cmdline_cirbuf.c',
>          'test_cmdline_etheraddr.c',
> diff --git a/app/test/test_cksum_perf.c b/app/test/test_cksum_perf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..bff73cb3bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/app/test/test_cksum_perf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> + * Copyright(c) 2022 Ericsson AB
> + */
> +
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +
> +#include <rte_common.h>
> +#include <rte_cycles.h>
> +#include <rte_ip.h>
> +#include <rte_malloc.h>
> +#include <rte_random.h>
> +
> +#include "test.h"
> +
> +#define NUM_BLOCKS (10)
> +#define ITERATIONS (1000000)

Parenthesis can be safely removed

> +
> +static const size_t data_sizes[] = { 20, 21, 100, 101, 1500, 1501 };
> +
> +static __rte_noinline uint16_t
> +do_rte_raw_cksum(const void *buf, size_t len)
> +{
> +	return rte_raw_cksum(buf, len);
> +}

I don't understand the need to have this wrapper, especially marked
__rte_noinline. What is the objective?

Note that when I remove the __rte_noinline, the performance is better
for size 20 and 21.

> +
> +static void
> +init_block(void *buf, size_t len)

Can buf be a (char *) instead?
It would avoid a cast below.

> +{
> +	size_t i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> +		((char *)buf)[i] = (uint8_t)rte_rand();
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +test_cksum_perf_size_alignment(size_t block_size, bool aligned)
> +{
> +	char *data[NUM_BLOCKS];
> +	char *blocks[NUM_BLOCKS];
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	uint64_t start;
> +	uint64_t end;
> +	/* Floating point to handle low (pseudo-)TSC frequencies */
> +	double block_latency;
> +	double byte_latency;
> +	volatile __rte_unused uint64_t sum = 0;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < NUM_BLOCKS; i++) {
> +		data[i] = rte_malloc(NULL, block_size + 1, 0);
> +
> +		if (data[i] == NULL) {
> +			printf("Failed to allocate memory for block\n");
> +			return TEST_FAILED;
> +		}
> +
> +		init_block(data[i], block_size + 1);
> +
> +		blocks[i] = aligned ? data[i] : data[i] + 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	start = rte_rdtsc();
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; i++) {
> +		unsigned int j;
> +		for (j = 0; j < NUM_BLOCKS; j++)
> +			sum += do_rte_raw_cksum(blocks[j], block_size);
> +	}
> +
> +	end = rte_rdtsc();
> +
> +	block_latency = (end - start) / (double)(ITERATIONS * NUM_BLOCKS);
> +	byte_latency = block_latency / block_size;
> +
> +	printf("%-9s %10zd %19.1f %16.2f\n", aligned ? "Aligned" : "Unaligned",
> +	       block_size, block_latency, byte_latency);

When I run the test on my dev machine, I get the following results,
which are quite reproductible:

Aligned           20       10.4      0.52     (range is 0.48 - 0.52)
Unaligned         20        7.9      0.39     (range is 0.39 - 0.40)
...

If I increase the number of iterations, the first results
change significantly:

Aligned           20        8.2      0.42     (range is 0.41 - 0.42)
Unaligned         20        8.0      0.40     (always this value)

To have more precise tests with small size, would it make sense to
target a test time instead of an iteration count? Something like
this:

	#define ITERATIONS 1000000
	uint64_t iterations = 0;

	...

	do {
		for (i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; i++) {
			unsigned int j;
			for (j = 0; j < NUM_BLOCKS; j++)
				sum += do_rte_raw_cksum(blocks[j], block_size);
		}
		iterations += ITERATIONS;
		end = rte_rdtsc();
	} while ((end - start) < rte_get_tsc_hz());

	block_latency = (end - start) / (double)(iterations * NUM_BLOCKS);


After this change, the aligned and unaligned cases have the same
performance on my machine.


> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < NUM_BLOCKS; i++)
> +		rte_free(data[i]);
> +
> +	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +test_cksum_perf_size(size_t block_size)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +
> +	rc = test_cksum_perf_size_alignment(block_size, true);
> +	if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS)
> +		return rc;
> +
> +	rc = test_cksum_perf_size_alignment(block_size, false);
> +
> +	return rc;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +test_cksum_perf(void)
> +{
> +	uint16_t i;
> +
> +	printf("### rte_raw_cksum() performance ###\n");
> +	printf("Alignment  Block size    TSC cycles/block  TSC cycles/byte\n");
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(data_sizes); i++) {
> +		int rc;
> +
> +		rc = test_cksum_perf_size(data_sizes[i]);
> +		if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS)
> +			return rc;
> +	}
> +
> +	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +
> +REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(cksum_perf_autotest, test_cksum_perf);
> +

The last empty line can be removed.

> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-07-11  9:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87139@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
2022-06-17  8:45 ` [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer Morten Brørup
2022-06-17  9:06   ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-20 10:37     ` Emil Berg
2022-06-20 10:57       ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-21  7:16         ` Emil Berg
2022-06-21  8:05           ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-21  8:23             ` Bruce Richardson
2022-06-21  9:35               ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-22  6:26                 ` Emil Berg
2022-06-22  9:18                   ` Bruce Richardson
2022-06-22 11:26                     ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-22 12:25                       ` Emil Berg
2022-06-22 14:01                         ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-22 14:03                           ` Emil Berg
2022-06-23  5:21                           ` Emil Berg
2022-06-23  7:01                             ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-23 11:39                               ` Emil Berg
2022-06-23 12:18                                 ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-22 13:44 ` [PATCH v2] " Morten Brørup
2022-06-22 13:54 ` [PATCH v3] " Morten Brørup
2022-06-23 12:39 ` [PATCH v4] " Morten Brørup
2022-06-23 12:51   ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-27  7:56     ` Emil Berg
2022-06-27 10:54       ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-27 12:28     ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-06-27 12:46       ` Emil Berg
2022-06-27 12:50         ` Emil Berg
2022-06-27 13:22           ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-27 17:22             ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-06-27 20:21               ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-28  6:28                 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-06-30 16:28                   ` Morten Brørup
2022-07-07 15:21                     ` Stanisław Kardach
2022-07-07 18:34                 ` [PATCH 1/2] app/test: add cksum performance test Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-07 18:34                   ` [PATCH 2/2] net: have checksum routines accept unaligned data Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-07 21:44                     ` Morten Brørup
2022-07-08 12:43                       ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-08 12:56                         ` [PATCH v2 1/2] app/test: add cksum performance test Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-08 12:56                           ` [PATCH v2 2/2] net: have checksum routines accept unaligned data Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-08 14:44                             ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-07-11  9:53                             ` Olivier Matz
2022-07-11 10:53                               ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-11  9:47                           ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2022-07-11 10:42                             ` [PATCH v2 1/2] app/test: add cksum performance test Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-11 11:33                               ` Olivier Matz
2022-07-11 12:11                                 ` [PATCH v3 " Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-11 12:11                                   ` [PATCH v3 2/2] net: have checksum routines accept unaligned data Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-11 13:25                                     ` Olivier Matz
2022-08-08  9:25                                       ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-09-20 12:09                                       ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-09-20 16:10                                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-07-11 13:20                                   ` [PATCH v3 1/2] app/test: add cksum performance test Olivier Matz
2022-07-08 13:02                         ` [PATCH 2/2] net: have checksum routines accept unaligned data Morten Brørup
2022-07-08 13:52                           ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-07-08 14:10                             ` Bruce Richardson
2022-07-08 14:30                               ` Morten Brørup
2022-06-30 17:41   ` [PATCH v4] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer Stephen Hemminger
2022-06-30 17:45   ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-07-01  4:11     ` Emil Berg
2022-07-01 16:50       ` Morten Brørup
2022-07-01 17:04         ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-07-01 20:46           ` Morten Brørup

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=YsvxpfTqZZJBI2FD@platinum \
    --to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=bugzilla@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=emil.berg@ericsson.com \
    --cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=onar.olsen@ericsson.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    /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).