From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com
[209.85.212.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEC5C338
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:48:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so84741955wic.0
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=qfK7AQECJYBovtQbp2PH2j4GEF0GE57njzjumdgobsk=;
b=LKoxDDVxEjRGPXceEHspWPS5LMyvSlmOwPUbT8BSYW1h8wl56RcqKLkuxCQsWBOlnV
foNySU8hMrJwlQSkGXlo/RgCGcNXPkE81z8FfXW/FcSANbCvTHkw7Qv+Db7B+JHkjxPL
L1igj1kvVf4EJLY0nPNdFGf5WVwd/J55sHGzvtsVgin1Nx0IEQkc/eXXYonMM5L8eEUB
Gxsh+TIlN+JLvT0IguvxcEhuV29Bbe5hK6GhpwIXnNLHytjIXQwfwNqLUjhyBDDqUzhz
32xvL3Ih+1TR4KbvSoD12EBt+mYrLFeKB4Vm4RhLGkj5XRhHQDokAW9GS7i8BVwL3P++
GQzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQb3RKm8b4UFc2Qhz/HQWtO7QWf94M3wNzLeW4kahZf6S3yAyjmzLhEcDZAuK+4C6JRQ0B
X-Received: by 10.194.95.41 with SMTP id dh9mr46295844wjb.55.1431964083698;
Mon, 18 May 2015 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([90.152.119.35])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vy5sm17488920wjc.33.2015.05.18.08.48.02
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 18 May 2015 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <555A09B2.3070609@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:48:02 +0100
From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1431543554-442-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
<5559DAC1.8050106@linaro.org>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582142FA3B@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<5559E00C.3050708@linaro.org>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582142FA79@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<5559E9A4.3020400@linaro.org>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582142FCE9@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772582142FCE9@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: limit cache_size
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: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:48:04 -0000
On 18/05/15 15:13, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:31 PM
>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: limit cache_size
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/05/15 14:14, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss@linaro.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:50 PM
>>>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: limit cache_size
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/05/15 13:41, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Zoltan Kiss
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:28 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: limit cache_size
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any opinion on this patch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoltan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/05/15 19:59, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>>>>>> Otherwise cache_flushthresh can be bigger than n, and
>>>>>>> a consumer can starve others by keeping every element
>>>>>>> either in use or in the cache.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
>>>>>>> index cf7ed76..ca6cd9c 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
>>>>>>> @@ -440,7 +440,8 @@ rte_mempool_xmem_create(const char *name, unsigned n, unsigned elt_size,
>>>>>>> mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, rte_mempool_list);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* asked cache too big */
>>>>>>> - if (cache_size > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE) {
>>>>>>> + if (cache_size > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE ||
>>>>>>> + (uint32_t) cache_size * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER > n) {
>>>>>>> rte_errno = EINVAL;
>>>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Why just no 'cache_size > n' then?
>>>>
>>>> The commit message says: "Otherwise cache_flushthresh can be bigger than
>>>> n, and a consumer can starve others by keeping every element either in
>>>> use or in the cache."
>>>
>>> Ah yes, you right - your condition is more restrictive, which is better.
>>> Though here you implicitly convert cache_size and n to floats and compare 2 floats :
>>> (uint32_t) cache_size * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER > n)
>>> Shouldn't it be:
>>> (uint32_t)(cache_size * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER) > n)
>>> So we do conversion back to uint32_t compare to unsigned integers instead?
>>> Same as below:
>>> mp->cache_flushthresh = (uint32_t)
>>> (cache_size * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER);
>>
>> To bring it further: how about ditching the whole cache_flushthresh
>> member of the mempool structure, and use this:
>>
>> #define CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH(mp) (uint32_t)((mp)->cache_size * 1.5)
>
> That's quite expensive and I think would slow down mempool_put() quite a lot .
> So I'd suggest we keep cache_flushthresh as it is.
Ok, I have posted a v2 based on your suggestion.
>
>>
>> Furthermore, do we want to expose the flush threshold multiplier through
>> the config file?
>
> Hmm, my opinion is no - so far no one ask for that,
> and as general tendency - we trying to reduce number of options in config file.
> Do you have any good justification when current value is not good enough?
Nothing special, just the arbitrary value choice seemed a bit odd.
> Anyway, that probably could be a subject of another patch/discussion.
> Konstantin
>
>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> In fact, as we use it more than once, it probably makes sense to create a macro for it,
>>> something like:
>>> #define CALC_CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH(c) ((uint32_t)((c) * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER)
>>>
>>> Or even
>>>
>>> #define CALC_CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH(c) ((typeof (c))((c) * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER)
>>>
>>>
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Konstantin
>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
>>>>>>> index 9001312..a4a9610 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
>>>>>>> @@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ typedef void (rte_mempool_ctor_t)(struct rte_mempool *, void *);
>>>>>>> * If cache_size is non-zero, the rte_mempool library will try to
>>>>>>> * limit the accesses to the common lockless pool, by maintaining a
>>>>>>> * per-lcore object cache. This argument must be lower or equal to
>>>>>>> - * CONFIG_RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE. It is advised to choose
>>>>>>> + * CONFIG_RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE and n / 1.5. It is advised to choose
>>>>>>> * cache_size to have "n modulo cache_size == 0": if this is
>>>>>>> * not the case, some elements will always stay in the pool and will
>>>>>>> * never be used. The access to the per-lcore table is of course
>>>>>>>