* Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK 2.1.0 build error: inlining failed in call to always_inline
2015-08-21 10:54 ` Bruce Richardson
@ 2015-08-21 15:13 ` Keith E. Fleming
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keith E. Fleming @ 2015-08-21 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Richardson; +Cc: dev
Hi Bruce,
It is Fedora 21
[root@neutron dpdk-2.1.0]# cat /proc/cpuinfo | more
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 16
model : 10
model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor
stepping : 0
microcode : 0x10000dc
cpu MHz : 800.000
cache size : 512 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 6
core id : 0
cpu cores : 6
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 6
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxe
xt fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid aperfmperf pni monitor cx16 popcnt lah
f_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt cpb hw_pstate npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_sa
ve pausefilter vmmcall
[root@neutron dpdk-2.1.0]# uname -a
Linux neutron 4.1.5-100.fc21.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Aug 11 00:24:23 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[root@neutron dpdk-2.1.0]# gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.9.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla --enable-bootstrap --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-linker-build-id --with-linker-hash-style=gnu --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,ada,go,lto --enable-plugin --enable-initfini-array --disable-libgcj --with-isl=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.9.2-20150212/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux/isl-install --with-cloog=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.9.2-20150212/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux/cloog-install --enable-gnu-indirect-function --with-tune=generic --with-arch_32=i686 --build=x86_64-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.2 20150212 (Red Hat 4.9.2-6) (GCC)
Let me know if there's anything else you need. Thanks!
On Friday, August 21, 2015 6:54 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:35:10PM +0000, Keith E. Fleming wrote:
> make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gccsed -ri 's,(PMD_PCAP=).*,\1y,' build/.configmake
> [root@neutron dpdk-2.1.0]# make 2>&1 | more
> == Build lib
> == Build lib/librte_compat
> == Build lib/librte_eal
> == Build lib/librte_eal/common
> == Build lib/librte_eal/linuxapp
> == Build lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio
> (cat /dev/null; echo kernel//root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/build/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/igb_uio.ko;) > /root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/build
> /lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/modules.order
> Building modules, stage 2.
> MODPOST 1 modules
> == Build lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal
> CC eal_common_options.o
> In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.9.2/include/x86intrin.h:37:0,
> from /root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/include/rte_vect.h:67,
> from /root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/include/rte_memcpy.h:46,
> from /root/dpdk-2.1.0/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c:48:
> /root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/include/rte_memcpy.h: In function ‘rte_memcpy’:
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.9.2/include/tmmintrin.h:185:1: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline ‘_mm_alignr_epi8’: t
> arget specific option mismatch
> _mm_alignr_epi8(__m128i __X, __m128i __Y, const int __N)
> ^
> In file included from /root/dpdk-2.1.0/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c:48:0:
> /root/dpdk-2.1.0/build/include/rte_memcpy.h:425:9: error: called from here
>
> I can't even guess at what the problem is here. It's a total trainwreck. I assume this has compiled successfully for someone somewhere? Thanks
What OS platform is this on - from the gcc path, it looks like gcc 4.9 on Redhat 7? Is that correct?
/Bruce
From zoltan.kiss@linaro.org Fri Aug 21 20:05:08 2015
Return-Path: <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48C65A6F
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:05:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so21987139wic.0
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d\x1e100.net; s 130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=rqYwk902DLsXf0R3RUwusQ7DPdPQ4midnM9D77V9L9U=;
b=bGVw6A0RFUXBF8MqiE6Orwkt4JMMoe8GNPfuHY2iJ8dAYhZi0pRttqLe3+BuUGu2uy
VMeeYSpxbEJh0jEGkcd4EX0jhhjcKLzM7wQ8YqwwRPMl7nSvrKjb55lQSBCJvb/r9VqN
IA3myVwJg/SEr3m2LyMGbpW3zW8skO8G5a6dFxO4Ktp+pbV7YFuvQEzqJMF6cZso+vm1
jZX8ip5XBv4dwepJSHj4mUua+vIn53KbpQkl3kRAi3EzGENlCGUHFGfr2nRNeQ9KJO+Z
AECoCnb5wdyFHObu4uzQzLau2V1rwChWxTbHB/DiN2Dz9Bavm+Y+FpK7FF7aencEjrYN
NIzA=X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQll17WSGi8GU0MFhBRvGJb55DJIHydAlLHJwaZIbbA3mkwhBHMNCFhA7o270clF4mxBX8rx
X-Received: by 10.194.93.198 with SMTP id cw6mr18043662wjb.113.1440180308659;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([90.152.119.35])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm10950493wje.33.2015.08.21.11.05.07
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55D76854.5010306@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:05:08 +0100
From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, dev@openvswitch.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dpdk-dev] OVS-DPDK performance problem on ixgbe vector PMD
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:05:09 -0000
Hi,
I've set up a simple packet forwarding perf test on a dual-port 10G
82599ES: one port receives 64 byte UDP packets, the other sends it out,
one core used. I've used latest OVS with DPDK 2.1, and the first result
was only 13.2 Mpps, which was a bit far from the 13.9 I've seen last
year with the same test. The first thing I've changed was to revert back
to the old behaviour about this issue:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/22731
So instead of the new default I've passed 2048 + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM.
That increased the performance to 13.5, but to figure out what's wrong
started to play with the receive functions. First I've disabled vector
PMD, but ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc() was even worse, only 12.5 Mpps. So
then I've enabled scattered RX, and with
ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro_bulk_alloc() I could manage to get 13.98 Mpps, which
is I guess as close as possible to the 14.2 line rate (on my HW at
least, with one core)
Does anyone has a good explanation about why the vector PMD performs so
significantly worse? I would expect that on a 3.2 GHz i5-4570 one core
should be able to reach ~14 Mpps, SG and vector PMD shouldn't make a
difference.
I've tried to look into it with oprofile, but the results were quite
strange: 35% of the samples were from miniflow_extract, the part where
parse_vlan calls data_pull to jump after the MAC addresses. The oprofile
snippet (1M samples):
511454 19 0.0037 flow.c:511
511458 149 0.0292 dp-packet.h:266
51145f 4264 0.8357 dp-packet.h:267
511466 18 0.0035 dp-packet.h:268
51146d 43 0.0084 dp-packet.h:269
511474 172 0.0337 flow.c:511
51147a 4320 0.8467 string3.h:51
51147e 358763 70.3176 flow.c:99
511482 2 3.9e-04 string3.h:51
511485 3060 0.5998 string3.h:51
511488 1693 0.3318 string3.h:51
51148c 2933 0.5749 flow.c:326
511491 47 0.0092 flow.c:326
And the corresponding disassembled code:
511454: 49 83 f9 0d cmp r9,0xd
511458: c6 83 81 00 00 00 00 mov BYTE PTR [rbx+0x81],0x0
51145f: 66 89 83 82 00 00 00 mov WORD PTR [rbx+0x82],ax
511466: 66 89 93 84 00 00 00 mov WORD PTR [rbx+0x84],dx
51146d: 66 89 8b 86 00 00 00 mov WORD PTR [rbx+0x86],cx
511474: 0f 86 af 01 00 00 jbe 511629
<miniflow_extract+0x279>
51147a: 48 8b 45 00 mov rax,QWORD PTR [rbp+0x0]
51147e: 4c 8d 5d 0c lea r11,[rbp+0xc]
511482: 49 89 00 mov QWORD PTR [r8],rax
511485: 8b 45 08 mov eax,DWORD PTR [rbp+0x8]
511488: 41 89 40 08 mov DWORD PTR [r8+0x8],eax
51148c: 44 0f b7 55 0c movzx r10d,WORD PTR [rbp+0xc]
511491: 66 41 81 fa 81 00 cmp r10w,0x81
My only explanation to this so far is that I misunderstand something
about the oprofile results.
Regards,
Zoltan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread