From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649B85A15 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:03:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2015 03:57:29 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,441,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="654222991" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2015 04:03:10 -0800 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.81]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.15.8]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:02:58 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> To: "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization Thread-Index: AQHQM4rTAN1OIM5wWEKfjUL+RDqNWpzHaTyAgADqhgCAAMvWAIAAEcSAgADApYCAAIrt4A== Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:02:57 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213DE922@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1421632414-10027-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <20150119130221.GB21790@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75EFFE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20150120151118.GD18449@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150120161453.GA5316@bricha3-MOBL3> <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75F664@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75F664@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization 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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:03:14 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wang, Zhihong > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:44 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; Neil Horman > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:15 AM > > To: Neil Horman > > Cc: Wang, Zhihong; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:11:18AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:44AM +0000, Wang, Zhihong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 9:02 PM > > > > > To: Wang, Zhihong > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:53:30AM +0800, zhihong.wang@intel.com > > wrote: > > > > > > This patch set optimizes memcpy for DPDK for both SSE and AVX > > platforms. > > > > > > It also extends memcpy test coverage with unaligned cases and > > > > > > more test > > > > > points. > > > > > > > > > > > > Optimization techniques are summarized below: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Utilize full cache bandwidth > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Enforce aligned stores > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Apply load address alignment based on architecture features > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Make load/store address available as early as possible > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. General optimization techniques like inlining, branch > > > > > > reducing, prefetch pattern access > > > > > > > > > > > > Zhihong Wang (4): > > > > > > Disabled VTA for memcpy test in app/test/Makefile > > > > > > Removed unnecessary test cases in test_memcpy.c > > > > > > Extended test coverage in test_memcpy_perf.c > > > > > > Optimized memcpy in arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h for both SSE and AV= X > > > > > > platforms > > > > > > > > > > > > app/test/Makefile | 6 + > > > > > > app/test/test_memcpy.c | 52 +- > > > > > > app/test/test_memcpy_perf.c | 238 +++++= --- > > > > > > .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h | 664 > > > > > +++++++++++++++------ > > > > > > 4 files changed, 656 insertions(+), 304 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 1.9.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to compile this with gcc 4.9.2? The compilation of > > > > > test_memcpy_perf is taking forever for me. It appears hung. > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > Neil, > > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting this! > > > > It should compile but will take quite some time if the CPU doesn't = support > > AVX2, the reason is that: > > > > 1. The SSE & AVX memcpy implementation is more complicated than > > AVX2 > > > > version thus the compiler takes more time to compile and optimize 2= . > > > > The new test_memcpy_perf.c contains 126 constants memcpy calls for > > > > better test case coverage, that's quite a lot > > > > > > > > I've just tested this patch on an Ivy Bridge machine with GCC 4.9.2= : > > > > 1. The whole compile process takes 9'41" with the original > > > > test_memcpy_perf.c (63 + 63 =3D 126 constant memcpy calls) 2. It ta= kes > > > > only 2'41" after I reduce the constant memcpy call number to 12 + 1= 2 > > > > =3D 24 > > > > > > > > I'll reduce memcpy call in the next version of patch. > > > > > > > ok, thank you. I'm all for optimzation, but I think a compile that > > > takes almost > > > 10 minutes for a single file is going to generate some raised eyebrow= s > > > when end users start tinkering with it > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > Zhihong (John) > > > > > > Even two minutes is a very long time to compile, IMHO. The whole of DPD= K > > doesn't take that long to compile right now, and that's with a couple o= f huge > > header files with routing tables in it. Any chance you could cut compil= e time > > down to a few seconds while still having reasonable tests? > > Also, when there is AVX2 present on the system, what is the compile tim= e > > like for that code? > > > > /Bruce >=20 > Neil, Bruce, >=20 > Some data first. >=20 > Sandy Bridge without AVX2: > 1. original w/ 10 constant memcpy: 2'25" > 2. patch w/ 12 constant memcpy: 2'41" > 3. patch w/ 63 constant memcpy: 9'41" >=20 > Haswell with AVX2: > 1. original w/ 10 constant memcpy: 1'57" > 2. patch w/ 12 constant memcpy: 1'56" > 3. patch w/ 63 constant memcpy: 3'16" >=20 > Also, to address Bruce's question, we have to reduce test case to cut dow= n compile time. Because we use: > 1. intrinsics instead of assembly for better flexibility and can utilize = more compiler optimization > 2. complex function body for better performance > 3. inlining > This increases compile time. We use instrincts and inlining in many other places too. Why it suddenly became a problem here? Konstantin > But I think it'd be okay to do that as long as we can select a fair set o= f test points. >=20 > It'd be great if you could give some suggestion, say, 12 points. >=20 > Zhihong (John) >=20 >=20 >=20