From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Slava Ovsiienko" <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
"NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Olivier Matz" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Ali Alnubani" <alialnu@nvidia.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, "David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"Alexander Kozyrev" <akozyrev@nvidia.com>,
"Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, <zhaoyan.chen@intel.com>,
"Andrew Rybchenko" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Ajit Khaparde" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
<jerinj@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:39:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61ACA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB3753A223C6475A7EFE581761DFA89@DM6PR12MB3753.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Slava Ovsiienko
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 11.01
>
> Hi,
>
> I've re-read the entire thread.
> If I understand correctly, the root problem was (in initial patch):
>
> > m1 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
> > rte_pktmbuf_append(m1, 500);
> > m2 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
> > rte_pktmbuf_append(m2, 500);
> > rte_pktmbuf_chain(m1, m2);
> > m0 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
> > rte_pktmbuf_append(m0, 500);
> > rte_pktmbuf_chain(m0, m1);
> >
> > As rte_pktmbuf_chain() does not reset nb_seg in the initial m1
> segment
> > (this is not required), after this code the mbuf chain have 3
> > segments:
> > - m0: next=m1, nb_seg=3
> > - m1: next=m2, nb_seg=2
> > - m2: next=NULL, nb_seg=1
> >
> The proposed fix was to ALWAYS set next and nb_seg fields on
> mbuf_free(),
> regardless next field content. That would perform unconditional write
> to mbuf, and might affect the configurations, where are no multi-
> segment
> packets at al. mbuf_free() is "backbone" API, it is used by all cases,
> all
> scenaries are affected.
>
> As far as I know, the current approach for nb_seg field - it contains
> other
> value than 1 only in the first mbuf , for the following segments, it
> should
> not be considered at all (only the first segment fields are valid), and
> it is
> supposed to contain 1, as it was initially allocated from the pool.
>
> In the example above the problem was introduced by
> rte_pktmbuf_chain(). Could we consider fixing the rte_pktmbuf_chain()
> (used in potentially fewer common sceneries) instead of touching
> the extremely common rte_mbuf_free() ?
>
> With best regards,
> Slava
Great idea, Slava!
Changing the invariant for 'nb_segs', so it must be 1, except in the first segment of a segmented packet.
Thinking further about it, perhaps we can achieve even higher performance by a minor additional modification: Use 0 instead of 1? Or offset 'nb_segs' by -1, so it reflects the number of additional segments?
And perhaps combining the invariants for 'nb_segs' and 'next' could provide even more performance improvements. I don't know, just sharing a thought.
Anyway, I vote for fixing the bug. One way or the other!
-Morten
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:29
> >
> > Follow-up again:
> > We have added a note in 21.08, we should fix it in 21.11.
> > If there are no counter proposal, I suggest applying this patch, no
> matter the
> > performance regression.
> >
> >
> > 30/07/2021 16:54, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > 30/07/2021 16:35, Morten Brørup:
> > > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 30 July 2021 14.37
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:47:34AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon
> wrote:
> > > > > > What's the follow-up for this patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunatly, I still don't have the time to work on this topic
> yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my initial tests, in our lab, I didn't notice any
> performance
> > > > > regression, but Ali has seen an impact (0.5M PPS, but I don't
> know
> > > > > how much in percent).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 19/01/2021 15:04, Slava Ovsiienko:
> > > > > > > Hi, All
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like
> to
> > > > > conduct more investigations?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With best regards, Slava
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 05:52:32PM +0000, Ali Alnubani
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > (Sorry had to resend this to some recipients due to
> mail
> > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > problems).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just confirming that I can still reproduce the
> regression
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > single core and
> > > > > > > > 64B frames on other servers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Many thanks for the feedback. Can you please detail what
> is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > performance loss in percent, and confirm the test case?
> (I
> > > > > suppose it is
> > > > > > > > testpmd io forward).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunatly, I won't be able to spend a lot of time on
> this
> > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > (sorry for
> > > > > > > > that). So I see at least these 2 options:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - postpone the patch again, until I can find more time to
> analyze
> > > > > > > > and optimize
> > > > > > > > - apply the patch if the performance loss is acceptable
> > > > > > > > compared
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the added value of fixing a bug
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Statu quo...
> > > > >
> > > > > Olivier
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The decision should be simple:
> > > >
> > > > Does the DPDK project support segmented packets?
> > > > If yes, then apply the patch to fix the bug!
> > > >
> > > > If anyone seriously cares about the regression it introduces,
> optimization
> > patches are welcome later. We shouldn't wait for it.
> > >
> > > You're right, but the regression is flagged to a 4-years old patch,
> > > that's why I don't consider it as urgent.
> > >
> > > > If the patch is not applied, the documentation must be updated to
> > mention that we are releasing DPDK with a known bug: that segmented
> > packets are handled incorrectly in the scenario described in this
> patch.
> > >
> > > Yes, would be good to document the known issue, no matter how old
> it
> > > is.
> > >
> > > > Generally, there could be some performance to gain by not
> supporting
> > segmented packets at all, as a compile time option. But that is a
> different
> > discussion.
> >
> >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-28 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-04 17:00 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 0:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05 7:46 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 8:26 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-11-05 9:10 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 11:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05 12:31 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 13:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05 13:24 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 13:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05 16:30 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-05 23:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-06 7:52 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-06 8:20 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-06 8:50 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-06 10:04 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-06 10:07 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-06 11:53 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-06 12:23 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-08 14:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-11-08 14:19 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-10 16:26 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 8:33 ` Morten Brørup
2020-11-05 9:03 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 9:09 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-11-08 7:25 ` Ali Alnubani
2020-12-18 12:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Olivier Matz
2020-12-18 13:18 ` Morten Brørup
2020-12-18 23:33 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-01-06 13:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-10 9:28 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-11 13:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-01-13 13:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-15 13:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " David Marchand
2021-01-15 18:39 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-18 17:52 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-19 8:32 ` Olivier Matz
2021-01-19 8:53 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-19 12:00 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 12:27 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-19 14:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:21 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 9:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:04 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-07-24 8:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 12:36 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 14:35 ` Morten Brørup
2021-07-30 14:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 15:14 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 15:23 ` Morten Brørup
2021-08-04 13:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: add known issue with mbuf segment Thomas Monjalon
2021-08-04 14:25 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-08-05 6:08 ` Morten Brørup
2021-08-06 14:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-08-06 14:24 ` Morten Brørup
2021-09-28 8:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free Thomas Monjalon
2021-09-28 9:00 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-09-28 9:25 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-09-28 9:39 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2021-09-29 8:03 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-09-29 21:39 ` Olivier Matz
2021-09-30 13:29 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-10-21 8:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-01-21 9:19 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-21 9:29 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] " Lincoln Lavoie
2021-01-23 8:57 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-25 17:00 ` Brandon Lo
2021-01-25 18:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-15 13:56 ` [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2021-09-29 21:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Olivier Matz
2021-09-30 13:27 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-10-21 9:18 ` David Marchand
2022-07-28 14:06 ` CI performance test results might be misleading Morten Brørup
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=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61ACA@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=akozyrev@nvidia.com \
--cc=alialnu@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
--cc=zhaoyan.chen@intel.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).