From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1F0A0C43;
Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:28:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E6040689;
Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:28:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-il1-f182.google.com (mail-il1-f182.google.com
[209.85.166.182])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E74040140
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:28:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-il1-f182.google.com with SMTP id z2so2964013iln.0
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=8DQi67mRu9IdhAOd5Bogf6TmUOOBttLO3jsRmM/o0gQ=;
b=ru3jf0lH/aJIU+gmLpPGMtQhsDZW0qsAAoJ0Av8j2C+SE2XnXfkEDNsGrm0QJycACw
WyKD50FrTBGqH6LOj09dGJGppZJ5TC5WNTfYSD8FnqiQ9qCKSBhNDQLHIJBYmL/HXXwC
faLgOutKQR5UiK4iOfjxIAHjPAsqWDaJ2Gt9pOEY4xGAFn0nDspEgfpbi/8qbN4c65cl
PoTg9n4YPffW7GSkomorm2vwaJha5PWknlwTKYMuWtQm/yN6XESrOrApRNFabUKJ5JDm
y0r9TtIWijGBTQ6JOIVnetx4VMhhWbHTeXyrQmll5EZuCytQBzRvhZpSxLUoGBjZrMvd
COlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=8DQi67mRu9IdhAOd5Bogf6TmUOOBttLO3jsRmM/o0gQ=;
b=PGkDAX9aLdirBfo701Ct2E3RM0uFRGhOfk2Wd/mi8F7wxOqGcBCqwiVBNk0fCYSEDB
3VtDrfLY3lSacqbOQcNgh+9c6t/nyAobzJqqba9RG4A9UTKmYkHr5NvfTkf+RDE40LTj
TnNj/bWnNOT9KXzCBQNLpsES8vN6m6UKFGCPUVH26PcD0O8/N4OV6jDj7YZ4F4A1QusG
3qSkC0Gu3U1GjKC4c6W/JsenYMvdYJ1l4j29DuBR7elbxCGgSS3mF9s0nntCBm01lggJ
KDhHgJZmSgHmYXCB9uKMJ3lg5znOXN2Qo6DggCF4myEt29krL82McBpfnHebnzXnZxSS
N4jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+o2h49ToPqXzpqbUCBljeRN68UcPivvLY28Fn0ptbi+gZ/x5N
HutMNGaSUjp22XwYPUj0Hu+JY1gvAdmGdVsJZ4k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyN8OOQCSVK/QpxMMqKWpYbx9Au2rXiMkeWfWgeDneeZABqPH9goeETjBli3wGPBJNL+tlP5gLOxUIEQWa5j78=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d70f:: with SMTP id m15mr2328944iln.162.1629977324458;
Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210727034204.20649-1-xuemingl@nvidia.com>
<20210811140418.393264-1-xuemingl@nvidia.com>
<20210811140418.393264-6-xuemingl@nvidia.com>
<CALBAE1MZpgc+FkBERGYujGu2HgfZXusHgsvJEgq07GYORbyw6A@mail.gmail.com>
<DM4PR12MB5373CC0C7F4798C7586D3E82A1FF9@DM4PR12MB5373.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
<CALBAE1P75aD-sYqhOz-wTV46vgfS=9TD8MkCxUXZUCdoqugeSw@mail.gmail.com>
<DM4PR12MB537349C4386A5BB1B4007235A1FF9@DM4PR12MB5373.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR12MB537349C4386A5BB1B4007235A1FF9@DM4PR12MB5373.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 16:58:18 +0530
Message-ID: <CALBAE1Ojg550c=iGRgKwL3+q92Nvj6SUWbcOyYK3xciZx9A=yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Xueming(Steven) Li" <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
Cc: Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd wrapper
function
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:38 PM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:48 PM
> > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd wrapper function
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 4:57 PM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:37 PM
> > > > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> > > > Cc: Jack Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Xiaoyun
> > > > Li <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/15] app/testpmd: add common fwd
> > > > wrapper function
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 7:35 PM Xueming Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Added an inline common wrapper function for all fwd engines which
> > > > > do the following in common:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. get_start_cycles
> > > > > 2. rte_eth_rx_burst(...,nb_pkt_per_burst)
> > > > > 3. if rxq_share do forward_shared_rxq(), otherwise do fwd directly 4.
> > > > > get_end_cycle
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@nvidia.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h index
> > > > > 13141dfed9..b685ac48d6 100644
> > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h
> > > > > @@ -1022,6 +1022,30 @@ void add_tx_dynf_callback(portid_t portid);
> > > > > void remove_tx_dynf_callback(portid_t portid); int
> > > > > update_jumbo_frame_offload(portid_t portid);
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void
> > > > > +do_burst_fwd(struct fwd_stream *fs, packet_fwd_cb fwd) {
> > > > > + struct rte_mbuf *pkts_burst[MAX_PKT_BURST];
> > > > > + uint16_t nb_rx;
> > > > > + uint64_t start_tsc = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + get_start_cycles(&start_tsc);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Receive a burst of packets and forward them.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(fs->rx_port, fs->rx_queue,
> > > > > + pkts_burst, nb_pkt_per_burst);
> > > > > + inc_rx_burst_stats(fs, nb_rx);
> > > > > + if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0))
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > + if (unlikely(rxq_share > 0))
> > > >
> > > > See below. It reads a global memory.
> > > >
> > > > > + forward_shared_rxq(fs, nb_rx, pkts_burst, fwd);
> > > > > + else
> > > > > + (*fwd)(fs, nb_rx, pkts_burst);
> > > >
> > > > New function pointer in fastpath.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, We should not create performance regression for the existing forward engine.
> > > > Can we have a new forward engine just for shared memory testing?
> > >
> > > Yes, fully aware of the performance concern, the global could be defined around record_core_cycles to minimize the impacts.
> > > Based on test data, the impacts almost invisible in legacy mode.
> >
> > Are you saying there is zero % regression? If not, could you share the data?
>
> Almost zero, here is a quick single core result of rxonly:
> 32.2Mpps, 58.9cycles/packet
> Revert the patch to rxonly.c:
> 32.1Mpps 59.9cycles/packet
> The result doesn't make sense and I realized that I used batch mbuf free, apply it now:
> 32.2Mpps, 58.9cycles/packet
> There were small digit jumps between testpmd restart, I picked the best one.
> The result is almost same, seems the cost of each packet is small enough.
> BTW, I'm testing with default burst size and queue depth.
I tested this on octeontx2 with iofwd with single core with 100Gbps
Without this patch - 73.5mpps
With this patch - 72.8 mpps
We are taking the shared queue runtime option without a separate fwd engine.
and to have zero performance impact and no compile time flag
Then I think, only way to have a function template .
Example change to outline function template principle.
static inline
__pkt_burst_io_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs, const u64 flag)
{
Introduce new checks under
if (flags & SHARED_QUEUE)
}
Have two versions of io_fwd_engine.packet_fwd per engine.
- first version
static pkt_burst_io_forward(struct fwd_stream *fs)
{
return __pkt_burst_io_forward(fs, 0);
}
- Second version
static pkt_burst_io_forward_shared_queue(struct fwd_stream *fs)
{
return __pkt_burst_io_forward(fs, SHARED_QUEUE);
}
Update io_fwd_engine.packet_fwd in slowpath to respective version
based on offload.
If shared offoad is not selected, pkt_burst_io_forward() will be selected and
__pkt_burst_io_forward() will be a compile time version of
!SHARED_QUEUE aka same as existing coe.
>
> >
> > >
> > > From test perspective, better to have all forward engine to verify
> > > shared rxq, test team want to run the regression with less impacts. Hope to have a solution to utilize all forwarding engines
> > seamlessly.
> >
> > Yes. it good goal. testpmd forward performance using as synthetic bench everyone.
> > I think, we are aligned to not have any regression for the generic forward engine.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + get_end_cycles(fs, start_tsc); }
> > > > > +
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Work-around of a compilation error with ICC on invocations of the
> > > > > * rte_be_to_cpu_16() function.
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >