From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com
[209.85.210.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFA01B60F
for <users@dpdk.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 05:35:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id b85so4995404pfc.3
for <users@dpdk.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:35:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=I+vX3JdOuCSMCeBKUwGy96iGfK+sEpX6aACl6nTZ334=;
b=YqVFHfOS4/S3KlwN4AOwWZZmG7rZz9LbTv90t+iXyT4zWWwBDQ/eBio+id3GiotaXB
sRwFIJYxQ4nRpCXO8sbsoY2zhRxgxUnwUgv26Ia4v8NaVDjaBCWkrYAC5lNCSHLuCE+D
Ycjns9RgmNrbQxEmgNw69q6iQtDn5FQk35QkuInh37Sa0p5kOkOpZgAlYtQpe/k60gbC
N2rjsKXPKMTDew2P/3sHAA9/ZM9oSOqVLkwt1STYEU14t9R0iybTbcjl9xBUCZXtZ3qG
2Y9LuF3aM08bGlRYIObRjqfhtk1CioHBedGVJumvtr5jDI7vuqyCxKtgGi7ewVRywAcD
5B7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=I+vX3JdOuCSMCeBKUwGy96iGfK+sEpX6aACl6nTZ334=;
b=eftEaqC6rME72TNAQeauIve9CPgKnIV7QZDrG8VNTT8nV8DBKKlG4jzkOEu1KsOWLn
0G9UX/NMsCecTpd390n0vd0rR1so6s0stR05UIaexZSX/4ZjLE1M8fghsC5NtSqXaGma
EovOObZfUe56q8N3w7NGRlP1Bd1v1kAjj7FHLCU0crt9yz4x/Ej5f228t0cz3yLI5xHW
w6PnKAmmYF7dMgDHjV4WPPZLXuaJRs3/E6NRJdNgku414QzlN59I6++frhe39i2HIbak
QMlY3dfjU5CTn1pOvA0+Un9+tMoOWnuXc0mk5eJj2/B0zNgwx4PJgOmbYp4CWFDV4CEZ
Q+JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbyLjBPfpkITrmpRs3mEXBn2jOOXaFuMnH9Z90b4scLrq2SYFgE
FHR56zLBYWCHDun8APpDnNuAtQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Ww+sru1Lt53IXrgLCY+4HgXfK6XL9aQGz2Tm8Ew7ZfTZlO1+OPaJFsUVC8PhyQI1ltKRwh7g==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:178f:: with SMTP id 137mr6968286pfx.226.1543120548944;
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xeon-e3 (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m129-v6sm69091209pfm.78.2018.11.24.20.35.48
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:35:41 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: Harsh Patel <thadodaharsh10@gmail.com>, Kyle Larose
<eomereadig@gmail.com>, "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20181124203541.4aa9bbf2@xeon-e3>
In-Reply-To: <34E92C48-A90C-472C-A915-AAA4A6B5CDE8@intel.com>
References: <CAA0iYrE_OBz5dCAT4UrDNHqnR4LKeHDKVMD5+5CgGA4Va7tn+g@mail.gmail.com>
<71CBA720-633D-4CFE-805C-606DAAEDD356@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrHkp_UZ=GMuzG+Ti6dJk4+FWFDotuNWDpcWLCqA1T6NZg@mail.gmail.com>
<D6A4CD43-BE09-4AFA-A82C-962650011A14@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrFBzO_Bw2bUy46VBjpLJNzos3M57N=nfkx8FNUMgq+2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
<3C60E59D-36AD-4382-8CC3-89D4EEB0140D@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrErep=BitAUoj88m=4JpVDvCtgC1bs3UNCEvBd4_=7iLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA0iYrFAZYKLyZ6ZbZTy=PnHgo=tnOc1eNQA_rA-FxzGG5QSVw@mail.gmail.com>
<76959924-D9DB-4C58-BB05-E33107AD98AC@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrGiPeY7zSHd0ukbQu=VcSVkAJ8c4m-fJW5pzWmQi3ayxA@mail.gmail.com>
<A74CE37E-B8B1-4069-9AAF-566DE44F92A8@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrGYreV5eoZ-ZfO=+ab-BOhGe_Rvor5j=pFTehFh4YAQrw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMFWN9nik1F5L=Ffy3s43eg=C2QEUzMjzmc-edLQRxXTRznczQ@mail.gmail.com>
<485F0372-7486-473B-ACDA-F42A2D86EF03@intel.com>
<CAA0iYrFYZhbC-1=t37OkepbP=SNtsPMBYFR6p1CGj3rUQSnaFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<34E92C48-A90C-472C-A915-AAA4A6B5CDE8@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Query on handling packets
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 04:35:50 -0000
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:01:04 +0000
"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Harsh Patel <thadodaharsh10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Thank you so much for the reply and for the solution.
> >
> > We used the given code. We were amazed by the pointer arithmetic you used, got to learn something new.
> >
> > But still we are under performing.The same bottleneck of ~2.5Mbps is seen.
> >
> > We also checked if the raw socket was using any extra (logical) cores than the DPDK. We found that raw socket has 2 logical threads running on 2 logical CPUs. Whereas, the DPDK version has 6 logical threads on 2 logical CPUs. We also ran the 6 threads on 4 logical CPUs, still we see the same bottleneck.
> >
> > We have updated our code (you can use the same links from previous mail). It would be helpful if you could help us in finding what causes the bottleneck.
>
> I looked at the code for a few seconds and noticed your TX_TIMEOUT is macro that calls (rte_get_timer_hz()/2014) just to be safe I would not call rte_get_timer_hz() time, but grab the value and store the hz locally and use that variable instead. This will not improve performance is my guess and I would have to look at the code the that routine to see if it buys you anything to store the value locally. If the getting hz is just a simple read of a variable then good, but still you should should a local variable within the object to hold the (rte_get_timer_hz()/2048) instead of doing the call and divide each time.
>
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Harsh and Hrishikesh
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 19:19 Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 17, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Kyle Larose <eomereadig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 5:22 AM Harsh Patel <thadodaharsh10@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello,
> > >> Thanks a lot for going through the code and providing us with so much
> > >> information.
> > >> We removed all the memcpy/malloc from the data path as you suggested and
> > > ...
> > >> After removing this, we are able to see a performance gain but not as good
> > >> as raw socket.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You're using an unordered_map to map your buffer pointers back to the
> > > mbufs. While it may not do a memcpy all the time, It will likely end
> > > up doing a malloc arbitrarily when you insert or remove entries from
> > > the map. If it needs to resize the table, it'll be even worse. You may
> > > want to consider using librte_hash:
> > > https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__hash_8h.html instead. Or, even better,
> > > see if you can design the system to avoid needing to do a lookup like
> > > this. Can you return a handle with the mbuf pointer and the data
> > > together?
> > >
> > > You're also using floating point math where it's unnecessary (the
> > > timing check). Just multiply the numerator by 1000000 prior to doing
> > > the division. I doubt you'll overflow a uint64_t with that. It's not
> > > as efficient as integer math, though I'm not sure offhand it'd cause a
> > > major perf problem.
> > >
> > > One final thing: using a raw socket, the kernel will take over
> > > transmitting and receiving to the NIC itself. that means it is free to
> > > use multiple CPUs for the rx and tx. I notice that you only have one
> > > rx/tx queue, meaning at most one CPU can send and receive packets.
> > > When running your performance test with the raw socket, you may want
> > > to see how busy the system is doing packet sends and receives. Is it
> > > using more than one CPU's worth of processing? Is it using less, but
> > > when combined with your main application's usage, the overall system
> > > is still using more than one?
> >
> > Along with the floating point math, I would remove all floating point math and use the rte_rdtsc() function to use cycles. Using something like:
> >
> > uint64_t cur_tsc, next_tsc, timo = (rte_timer_get_hz() / 16); /* One 16th of a second use 2/4/8/16/32 power of two numbers to make the math simple divide */
> >
> > cur_tsc = rte_rdtsc();
> >
> > next_tsc = cur_tsc + timo; /* Now next_tsc the next time to flush */
> >
> > while(1) {
> > cur_tsc = rte_rdtsc();
> > if (cur_tsc >= next_tsc) {
> > flush();
> > next_tsc += timo;
> > }
> > /* Do other stuff */
> > }
> >
> > For the m_bufPktMap I would use the rte_hash or do not use a hash at all by grabbing the buffer address and subtract the
> > mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *)RTE_PTR_SUB(buf, sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) + RTE_MAX_HEADROOM);
> >
> >
> > DpdkNetDevice:Write(uint8_t *buffer, size_t length)
> > {
> > struct rte_mbuf *pkt;
> > uint64_t cur_tsc;
> >
> > pkt = (struct rte_mbuf *)RTE_PTR_SUB(buffer, sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) + RTE_MAX_HEADROOM);
> >
> > /* No need to test pkt, but buffer maybe tested to make sure it is not null above the math above */
> >
> > pkt->pk_len = length;
> > pkt->data_len = length;
> >
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer(m_portId, 0, m_txBuffer, pkt);
> >
> > cur_tsc = rte_rdtsc();
> >
> > /* next_tsc is a private variable */
> > if (cur_tsc >= next_tsc) {
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush(m_portId, 0, m_txBuffer); /* hardcoded the queue id, should be fixed */
> > next_tsc = cur_tsc + timo; /* timo is a fixed number of cycles to wait */
> > }
> > return length;
> > }
> >
> > DpdkNetDevice::Read()
> > {
> > struct rte_mbuf *pkt;
> >
> > if (m_rxBuffer->length == 0) {
> > m_rxBuffer->next = 0;
> > m_rxBuffer->length = rte_eth_rx_burst(m_portId, 0, m_rxBuffer->pmts, MAX_PKT_BURST);
> >
> > if (m_rxBuffer->length == 0)
> > return std::make_pair(NULL, -1);
> > }
> >
> > pkt = m_rxBuffer->pkts[m_rxBuffer->next++];
> >
> > /* do not use rte_pktmbuf_read() as it does a copy for the complete packet */
> >
> > return std:make_pair(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(pkt, char *), pkt->pkt_len);
> > }
> >
> > void
> > DpdkNetDevice::FreeBuf(uint8_t *buf)
> > {
> > struct rte_mbuf *pkt;
> >
> > if (!buf)
> > return;
> > pkt = (struct rte_mbuf *)RTE_PKT_SUB(buf, sizeof(rte_mbuf) + RTE_MAX_HEADROOM);
> >
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkt);
> > }
> >
> > When your code is done with the buffer, then convert the buffer address back to a rte_mbuf pointer and call rte_pktmbuf_free(pkt); This should eliminate the copy and floating point code. Converting my C code to C++ priceless :-)
> >
> > Hopefully the buffer address passed is the original buffer address and has not be adjusted.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Keith
> >
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
Also rdtsc causes cpu to stop doing any look ahead, so there is a heisenberg effect.
Adding more rdtsc will hurt performance. It also looks like your code is not doing bursting correctly.
What if multiple packets arrive in one rx_burst?