From: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
To: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"bruce.richardson@intel.com" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>,
nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary functions
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:40:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d79d603c-0463-9f8b-70cf-76aa35d406f4@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB4418D62B3FE566B882451E879EF90@AM0PR08MB4418.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
On 01/07/2019 07:44, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> Hi Medvedkin,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 23:35
>> To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>> Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
>> (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>;
>> bruce.richardson@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology
>> China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary
>> functions
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
>> "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Honnappa,
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +0000 "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology
>>>>>> China)"<Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop
>>>>>>>>> on some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
>>>>>>>>> By force no-inline functions, the performance was better than
>>>>>>>>> before on x86 and no impact to arm64 platforms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Medvedkin
>> Vladimir<vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang<ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu<gavin.hu@arm.com>
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you actually need to force noinline or is just taking of inline
>> enough?
>>>>>>>> In general, letting compiler decide is often best practice.
>>>>>>> The force noinline is an optimization for x86 platforms to keep
>>>>>>> rte_lpm_add() API performance with memory ordering applied.
>>>>>> I don't think you answered my question. What does a recent version
>>>>>> of GCC do if you drop the inline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually all the functions in rte_lpm should drop inline.
>>>>> I'm agree with Stephen. If it is not a fastpath and size of
>>>>> function is not minimal it is good to remove inline qualifier for
>>>>> other control plane functions such as rule_add/delete/find/etc and
>>>>> let the compiler decide to inline it (unless it affects performance).
>>>> IMO, the rule needs to be simple. If it is control plane function, we should
>> leave it to the compiler to decide. I do not think we need to worry too much
>> about performance for control plane functions.
>>> Control plane is not as important as data plane speed but it is still
>>> important. For lpm we are talking not about initialization, but
>>> runtime routes add/del related functions. If it is very slow the
>>> library will be totally unusable because after it receives a route
>>> update it will be blocked for a long time and route update queue would
>> overflow.
>>
>> Control plane performance is more impacted by algorithmic choice.
>> The original LPM had terrible (n^2?) control path. Current code is better.
>> I had a patch using RB tree, but it was rejected because it used the
>> /usr/include/bsd/sys/tree.h which added a dependency.
> Based on current discussion, I'd like to drop this single patch from the patch set.
> Since it is not directly related to memory ordering changes in this library.
> We can remove inlines in a follow up patch.
I think this patch is indirectly related to changes. I can't accept a
memory ordering patch series _before_ this patch because a repository
state will appear in which the performance of LPM add/delete has
dropped. So if it could be avoided it have to be avoided.
--
Regards,
Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-05 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-27 9:37 Ruifeng Wang
2019-06-27 9:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v1604 Ruifeng Wang
2019-06-27 9:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] lib/lpm: memory orderings to avoid race conditions for v20 Ruifeng Wang
2019-06-28 13:33 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-06-29 17:35 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-07-05 13:45 ` Alex Kiselev
2019-07-05 16:56 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-07-01 7:08 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-06-27 15:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary functions Stephen Hemminger
2019-06-28 2:44 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-06-28 4:34 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-06-28 5:48 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-06-28 13:47 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-06-28 13:57 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-06-28 14:16 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-06-28 15:35 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-07-01 6:44 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-07-05 10:40 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir [this message]
2019-07-05 10:58 ` Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-07-05 10:31 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-07-05 13:37 ` Alex Kiselev
2019-07-05 16:53 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2019-06-28 13:38 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
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=d79d603c-0463-9f8b-70cf-76aa35d406f4@intel.com \
--to=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com \
--cc=Gavin.Hu@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nd@arm.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).