From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rte_ring: don't use always inline
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:48:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1d8bf669-9ada-5ab1-6eb4-bd2a0771c544@yandex.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnVPOjP35iNg+cMU@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
06/05/2022 17:39, Bruce Richardson пишет:
> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 09:33:41AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:28:41 +0100
>> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 03:12:32PM +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:59:32PM +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Stephen. Do you see any performance difference with this change?
>>>>>
>>>>> as a matter of due diligence i think a comparison should be made just to be
>>>>> confident nothing is regressing.
>>>>>
>>>>> i support this change in principal since it is generally accepted best practice to
>>>>> not force inlining since it can remove more valuable optimizations that the
>>>>> compiler may make that the human can't see.
>>>>> the optimizations may vary depending on compiler implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> force inlining should be used as a targeted measure rather than blanket on
>>>>> every function and when in use probably needs to be periodically reviewed and
>>>>> potentially removed as the code / compiler evolves.
>>>>>
>>>>> also one other consideration is the impact of a particular compiler's force
>>>>> inlining intrinsic/builtin is that it may permit inlining of functions when not
>>>>> declared in a header. i.e. a function from one library may be able to be inlined
>>>>> to another binary as a link time optimization. although everything here is in a
>>>>> header so it's a bit moot.
>>>>>
>>>>> i'd like to see this change go in if possible.
>>>> Like Stephen mentions below, I am sure we will have a for and against discussion here.
>>>> As a DPDK community we have put performance front and center, I would prefer to go down that route first.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I ran some initial numbers with this patch, and the very quick summary of
>>> what I've seen so far:
>>>
>>> * Unit tests show no major differences, and while it depends on what
>>> specific number you are interested in, most seem within margin of error.
>>> * Within unit tests, the one number I mostly look at when considering
>>> inlining is the "empty poll" cost, since I believe we should look to keep
>>> that as close to zero as possible. In the past I've seen that number jump
>>> from 3 cycles to 12 cycles due to missed inlining. In this case, it seem
>>> fine.
>>> * Ran a quick test with the eventdev_pipeline example app using SW eventdev,
>>> as a test of an actual app which is fairly ring-heavy [used 8 workers
>>> with 1000 cycles per packet hop]. (Thanks to Harry vH for this suggestion
>>> of a workload)
>>> * GCC 8 build - no difference observed
>>> * GCC 11 build - approx 2% perf reduction observed
Just to note that apart from ring_perf_autotest, there also exist
ring_stress_autotest which trying to do some stress-testing in hopefully
more realistic usage scenarios.
Might be worth to consider when benchmarking.
>>>
>>> As I said, these are just some quick rough numbers, and I'll try and get
>>> some more numbers on a couple of different platforms, see if the small
>>> reduction seen is consistent or not. I may also test a few differnet
>>> combinations/options in the eventdev test. It would be good if others also
>>> tested on a few platforms available to them.
>>>
>>> /Bruce
>>
>> I wonder if a mixed approach might help where some key bits were marked
>> as more important to inline? Or setting compiler flags in build infra?
>
> Yep, could be a number of options.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-06 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-05 22:45 Stephen Hemminger
2022-05-05 22:59 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2022-05-05 23:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-05-05 23:16 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-05-06 1:37 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2022-05-06 7:24 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2022-05-06 15:12 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2022-05-06 15:28 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-05-06 16:33 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-05-06 16:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-05-06 17:48 ` Konstantin Ananyev [this message]
2022-05-06 15:41 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-05-06 16:38 ` Bruce Richardson
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=1d8bf669-9ada-5ab1-6eb4-bd2a0771c544@yandex.ru \
--to=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--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).