From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8564B2B93 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:18:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1490951906; x=1522487906; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NKKkOMRtHlyzm9ZC2kJEuQ3KY74DQ8iDUTF512PW0z4=; b=Yw5SiIqJaWcdgsnqPD4QoJdek6cHrxt2VW9vFfMOtp54WNIlsQcWN0Jf YD9stZVg9EIrqkKFe/s1gs1kCX0akA==; Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Mar 2017 02:18:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,251,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="840345373" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2017 02:18:23 -0700 Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.12]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:18:23 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Olivier Matz , "Richardson, Bruce" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "jblunck@infradead.org" , "nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization Thread-Index: AQHSl/BM96NM/aKG30C3i/t54/q6k6GsCWqAgABGqICAAOACAIAAKlIAgAAFugCAAFkDYIAAAV1QgACFrWCAAHAVAIAABFSAgAAE9oCAABUBQA== Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:22 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170329175629.68810924@platinum> <20170329200923.GA11516@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170330093108.GA10652@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170330140236.0d2ebac8@platinum> <20170330122305.GA14272@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2A51@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2A6E@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE2DD8@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170331102610.3f82e21e@platinum> <20170331084139.GB7668@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> In-Reply-To: <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:27 -0000 Hi guys, >=20 > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:00:49 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:23 PM > > > > > > > To: Olivier Matz > > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin ; mb@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey > > > > > > > ; jblunck@infradead.org; nelio.lar= anjeiro@6wind.com; arybchenko@solarflare.com > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganiz= ation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Bruce Richardso= n wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz = wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any other comment on this series? > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be applied? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Olivier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume all driver maintainers have done performance a= nalysis to check > > > > > > > > > > for regressions. Perhaps they can confirm this is the c= ase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the absence, of anyone else reporting performance numb= ers with this > > > > > > > > > patchset, I ran a single-thread testpmd test using 2 x 40= G ports (i40e) > > > > > > > > > driver. With RX & TX descriptor ring sizes of 512 or abov= e, I'm seeing a > > > > > > > > > fairly noticable performance drop. I still need to dig in= more, e.g. do > > > > > > > > > an RFC2544 zero-loss test, and also bisect the patchset t= o see what > > > > > > > > > parts may be causing the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone else tried any other drivers or systems to see= what the perf > > > > > > > > > impact of this set may be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did, of course. I didn't see any noticeable performance d= rop on > > > > > > > > ixgbe (4 NICs, one port per NIC, 1 core). I can replay the = test with > > > > > > > > current version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt you did some perf testing! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the regression I see is limited to i40e driver. I've = confirmed I > > > > > > > still see it with that driver in zero-loss tests, so next ste= p is to try > > > > > > > and localise what change in the patchset is causing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, though, I think we should see acks or other comments= from > > > > > > > driver maintainers at least confirming that they have tested.= You cannot > > > > > > > be held responsible for testing every DPDK driver before you = submit work > > > > > > > like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I also see a regression. > > > > > > Did a quick flood test on 2.8 GHZ IVB with 4x10Gb. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, forgot to mention - it is on ixgbe. > > > > > So it doesn't look like i40e specific. > > > > > > > > > > > Observed a drop even with default testpmd RXD/TXD numbers (128/= 512): > > > > > > from 50.8 Mpps down to 47.8 Mpps. > > > > > > From what I am seeing the particular patch that causing it: > > > > > > [dpdk-dev,3/9] mbuf: set mbuf fields while in pool > > > > > > > > > > > > cc version 5.3.1 20160406 (Red Hat 5.3.1-6) (GCC) > > > > > > cmdline: > > > > > > ./dpdk.org-1705-mbuf1/x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/app/testpmd -= -lcores=3D'7,8' -n 4 --socket-mem=3D'1024,0' -w 04:00.1 -w > 07:00.1 -w > > > > > > 0b:00.1 -w 0e:00.1 -- -i > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After applying the patch below got nearly original numbers (though = not quite) on my box. > > > > dpdk.org mainline: 50.8 > > > > with Olivier patch: 47.8 > > > > with patch below: 50.4 > > > > What I tried to do in it - avoid unnecessary updates of mbuf inside= rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(). > > > > For one segment per packet it seems to help. > > > > Though so far I didn't try it on i40e and didn't do any testing for= multi-seg scenario. > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MP= PS: > > > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > > 53.3 58.7 current > > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the wa= y) > > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that > > > really no impact > > > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms > > > of cycles per packet. > > > > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can > > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide. > > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with > > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other > > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want thi= s > > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is > > probably needed on it. > > >=20 > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) >=20 > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of > the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next > time. >=20 > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra testing first need to be done before making the final decision. BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1. Konstantin