DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Jerin Jacob" <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
	"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"dpdk-dev" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Olivier Matz" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Rybchenko" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	"Viacheslav Ovsiienko" <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
	"Ajit Khaparde" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	"Jerin Jacob" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"Hemant Agrawal" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	"Ray Kinsella" <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
	"Neil Horman" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	"Nithin Dabilpuram" <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>,
	"Kiran Kumar K" <kirankumark@marvell.com>, <techboard@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] [PATCH 1/1] mbuf: move pool pointer in first half
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:04:30 -0800
Message-ID: <20201109100430.5edb39f3@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61407@smartserver.smartshare.dk>

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:21:02 +0100
Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:

> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:06 AM
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:16:27AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:  
> > > +CC techboard
> > >  
> > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 6:18 AM
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 2:03 AM Thomas Monjalon  
> > <thomas@monjalon.net>  
> > > > wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > 07/11/2020 20:05, Jerin Jacob:  
> > > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 12:09 AM Thomas Monjalon  
> > > > <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:  
> > > > > > > 07/11/2020 18:12, Jerin Jacob:  
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 10:04 PM Thomas Monjalon  
> > > > <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The mempool pointer in the mbuf struct is moved
> > > > > > > > > from the second to the first half.
> > > > > > > > > It should increase performance on most systems having 64-  
> > byte  
> > > > cache line,  
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > i.e. mbuf is split in two cache lines.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But In any event, Tx needs to touch the pool to freeing  
> > back to  
> > > > the  
> > > > > > > > pool upon  Tx completion. Right?
> > > > > > > > Not able to understand the motivation for moving it to the  
> > > > first 64B cache line?  
> > > > > > > > The gain varies from driver to driver. For example, a  
> > Typical  
> > > > > > > > ARM-based NPU does not need to
> > > > > > > > touch the pool in Rx and its been filled by HW. Whereas it  
> > > > needs to  
> > > > > > > > touch in Tx if the reference count is implemented.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See below.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Due to this change, tx_offload is moved, so some vector  
> > data  
> > > > paths  
> > > > > > > > > may need to be adjusted. Note: OCTEON TX2 check is  
> > removed  
> > > > temporarily!  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It will be breaking the Tx path, Please just don't remove  
> > the  
> > > > static  
> > > > > > > > assert without adjusting the code.  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course not.
> > > > > > > I looked at the vector Tx path of OCTEON TX2,
> > > > > > > it's close to be impossible to understand :)
> > > > > > > Please help!  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Off course. Could you check the above section any share the  
> > > > rationale  
> > > > > > for this change
> > > > > > and where it helps and how much it helps?  
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been concluded in the techboard meeting you were part of.
> > > > > I don't understand why we restart this discussion again.
> > > > > I won't have the energy to restart this process myself.
> > > > > If you don't want to apply the techboard decision, then please
> > > > > do the necessary to request another quick decision.  
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Initially, I thought it is OK as we have 128B CL, After  
> > looking  
> > > > into Thomas's change, I realized
> > > > it is not good for ARM64 64B catchlines based NPU as
> > > > - A Typical  ARM-based NPU does not need to touch the pool in Rx  
> > and  
> > > > its been filled by HW. Whereas it needs to
> > > > touch in Tx if the reference count is implemented.  
> > >
> > > Jerin, I don't understand what the problem is here...
> > >
> > > Since RX doesn't touch m->pool, it shouldn't matter for RX which  
> > cache line m->pool resides in. I get that.  
> > >
> > > You are saying that TX needs to touch m->pool if the reference count  
> > is implemented. I get that. But I don't understand why it is worse
> > having m->pool in the first cache line than in the second cache line;
> > can you please clarify?  
> > >  
> > > > - Also it will be effecting exiting vector routines  
> > >
> > > That is unavoidable if we move something from the second to the first  
> > cache line.  
> > >
> > > It may require some rework on the vector routines, but it shouldn't  
> > be too difficult for whoever wrote these vector routines.  
> > >  
> > > >
> > > > I request to reconsider the tech board decision.  
> > >
> > > I was on the techboard meeting as an observer (or whatever the  
> > correct term would be for non-members), and this is my impression of
> > the decision on the meeting:  
> > >
> > > The techboard clearly decided not to move any dynamic fields in the  
> > first cache line, on the grounds that if we move them away again in a
> > later version, DPDK users utilizing a dynamic field in the first cache
> > line might experience a performance drop at that later time. And this
> > will be a very bad user experience, causing grief and complaints. To
> > me, this seemed like a firm decision, based on solid arguments.  
> > >
> > > Then the techboard discussed which other field to move to the freed  
> > up space in the first cache line. There were no performance reports
> > showing any improvements by moving the any of the suggested fields (m-  
> > >pool, m->next, m->tx_offload), and there was a performance report  
> > showing no improvements by moving m->next in a test case with large
> > segmented packets. The techboard decided to move m->pool as originally
> > suggested. To me, this seemed like a somewhat random choice between A,
> > B and C, on the grounds that moving one of them is probably better than
> > moving none of them.  
> > >  
> > 
> > This largely tallies with what I remember of the discussion too.
> > 
> > I'd also add though that the choice between the next pointer and the
> > pool
> > pointer came down to the fact that the next pointer is only used for
> > chained, multi-segment, packets - which also tend to be larger packets
> > -
> > while the pool pointer is of relevance to all packets, big and small,
> > single and multi-segment.  
> 
> I wish that was the case, but I am not so sure...
> 
> It is true that m->next is NULL for non-segmented packets.

Yes m->next is NULL for non-segmented packets.
Do we need to modify rte_mbuf_check() to enforce these checks?


  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-09 18:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-07 15:53 [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-07 17:12 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-07 18:39   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-07 19:05     ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-07 20:33       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09  5:18         ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09  8:04           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09  8:27             ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09  9:47               ` Bruce Richardson
2020-11-09 12:01                 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09 12:59                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09 13:35                     ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09 14:02                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09 14:08                         ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09 14:42                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09 14:53                             ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09  8:16           ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-09 10:06             ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2020-11-09 10:21               ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-09 18:04                 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2020-11-10  7:15                   ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-07 18:57 ` [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-11-09 10:08   ` Bruce Richardson
2020-11-09 10:30     ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-09 10:33     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-09 10:36       ` Bruce Richardson
2020-11-09 11:24       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-09 21:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] move mbuf pool pointer Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-09 21:29   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers: disable OCTEON TX2 in 32-bit build Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-10 18:05     ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-09 21:29   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mbuf: move pool pointer in first half Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-10 10:05     ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-10 10:44       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-10 16:25     ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-10 18:06       ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-12 14:39         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-10 18:08       ` Stephen Hemminger

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=20201109100430.5edb39f3@hermes.local \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=kirankumark@marvell.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git