From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] mempool: fix cache flushing algorithm
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:02:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALBAE1P4zFYdLwoQukn5Q-V-nTvc_UBWmWjhaV2uVBXQRytSSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D873E6@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 12:27 PM Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 21.51
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 05:57:39PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 16.01
> > > >
> > > > Hi Morten, Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > > > From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru]
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2022 16.52
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/9/22 17:31, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > > > >> From: Andrew Rybchenko
> > [mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2022 15.38
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > I finally took a couple of hours to carefully review the mempool-
> > > > related
> > > > series (including the ones that have already been pushed).
> > > >
> > > > The new behavior looks better to me in all situations I can think
> > > > about.
> > >
> > > Extreme care is required when touching a core library like the
> > mempool.
> > >
> > > Thank you, Olivier.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > > > > > >> +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > > > > > >> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct rte_mempool_cache {
> > > > > > >> * Cache is allocated to this size to allow it to
> > overflow
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> certain
> > > > > > >> * cases to avoid needless emptying of cache.
> > > > > > >> */
> > > > > > >> - void *objs[RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE * 3]; /**<
> > Cache
> > > > objects */
> > > > > > >> + void *objs[RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE * 2]; /**<
> > Cache
> > > > objects */
> > > > > > >> } __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How much are we allowed to break the ABI here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch reduces the size of the structure by removing a
> > now
> > > > unused
> > > > > > part at the end, which should be harmless.
> > > >
> > > > It is an ABI breakage: an existing application will use the new
> > 22.11
> > > > function to create the mempool (with a smaller cache), but will use
> > the
> > > > old inlined get/put that can exceed MAX_SIZE x 2 will remain.
> > > >
> > > > But this is a nice memory consumption improvement, in my opinion we
> > > > should accept it for 22.11 with an entry in the release note.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we may also move the position of the objs array, I would
> > add
> > > > > > __rte_cache_aligned to the objs array. It makes no difference
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > general case, but if get/put operations are always 32 objects,
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > > reduce the number of memory (or last level cache) accesses from
> > > > five to
> > > > > > four 64 B cache lines for every get/put operation.
> > > >
> > > > Will it really be the case? Since cache->len has to be accessed
> > too,
> > > > I don't think it would make a difference.
> > >
> > > Yes, the first cache line, containing cache->len, will be accessed
> > always. I forgot to count that; so the improvement by aligning cache-
> > >objs will be five cache line accesses instead of six.
> > >
> > > Let me try to explain the scenario in other words:
> > >
> > > In an application where a mempool cache is only accessed in bursts of
> > 32 objects (256 B), it matters if those 256 B accesses in the mempool
> > cache start at a cache line aligned address or not. If cache line
> > aligned, accessing those 256 B in the mempool cache will only touch 4
> > cache lines; if not, 5 cache lines will be touched. (For architectures
> > with 128 B cache line, it will be 2 instead of 3 touched cache lines
> > per mempool cache get/put operation in applications using only bursts
> > of 32 objects.)
> > >
> > > If we cache line align cache->objs, those bursts of 32 objects (256
> > B) will be cache line aligned: Any address at cache->objs[N * 32
> > objects] is cache line aligned if objs->objs[0] is cache line aligned.
> > >
> > > Currently, the cache->objs directly follows cache->len, which makes
> > cache->objs[0] cache line unaligned.
> > >
> > > If we decide to break the mempool cache ABI, we might as well include
> > my suggested cache line alignment performance improvement. It doesn't
> > degrade performance for mempool caches not only accessed in bursts of
> > 32 objects.
> >
> > I don't follow you. Currently, with 16 objects (128B), we access to 3
> > cache lines:
> >
> > ┌────────┐
> > │len │
> > cache │********│---
> > line0 │********│ ^
> > │********│ |
> > ├────────┤ | 16 objects
> > │********│ | 128B
> > cache │********│ |
> > line1 │********│ |
> > │********│ |
> > ├────────┤ |
> > │********│_v_
> > cache │ │
> > line2 │ │
> > │ │
> > └────────┘
> >
> > With the alignment, it is also 3 cache lines:
> >
> > ┌────────┐
> > │len │
> > cache │ │
> > line0 │ │
> > │ │
> > ├────────┤---
> > │********│ ^
> > cache │********│ |
> > line1 │********│ |
> > │********│ |
> > ├────────┤ | 16 objects
> > │********│ | 128B
> > cache │********│ |
> > line2 │********│ |
> > │********│ v
> > └────────┘---
> >
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Accessing the objects at the bottom of the mempool cache is a special case, where cache line0 is also used for objects.
>
> Consider the next burst (and any following bursts):
>
> Current:
> ┌────────┐
> │len │
> cache │ │
> line0 │ │
> │ │
> ├────────┤
> │ │
> cache │ │
> line1 │ │
> │ │
> ├────────┤
> │ │
> cache │********│---
> line2 │********│ ^
> │********│ |
> ├────────┤ | 16 objects
> │********│ | 128B
> cache │********│ |
> line3 │********│ |
> │********│ |
> ├────────┤ |
> │********│_v_
> cache │ │
> line4 │ │
> │ │
> └────────┘
> 4 cache lines touched, incl. line0 for len.
>
> With the proposed alignment:
> ┌────────┐
> │len │
> cache │ │
> line0 │ │
> │ │
> ├────────┤
> │ │
> cache │ │
> line1 │ │
> │ │
> ├────────┤
> │ │
> cache │ │
> line2 │ │
> │ │
> ├────────┤
> │********│---
> cache │********│ ^
> line3 │********│ |
> │********│ | 16 objects
> ├────────┤ | 128B
> │********│ |
> cache │********│ |
> line4 │********│ |
> │********│_v_
> └────────┘
> Only 3 cache lines touched, incl. line0 for len.
When tested with testpmd,l3fwd there was less than 1% regression. It
could be noise.
But making the cacheline alignment is fixing that.
In addition to @Morten Brørup point, I think, there is a factor
"load" stall on cache->len read, What I meant by that is:
In the case of (len and objs) are in the same cache line. Assume objs
are written as stores operation and not read anything on cacheline
VS a few stores done for objects and on subsequent len read via
enqueue operation may stall based where those obj reached in
the cache hierarchy and cache policy(write-back vs write-through)
If we are seeing no regression with cachealinged with various platform
testing then I think it make sense to make cache aligned.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > uint32_t len; /**< Current cache count */
> > > > > > > - /*
> > > > > > > - * Cache is allocated to this size to allow it to overflow
> > > > in
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > - * cases to avoid needless emptying of cache.
> > > > > > > - */
> > > > > > > - void *objs[RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE * 3]; /**< Cache
> > > > objects */
> > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > + * Cache objects
> > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > + * Cache is allocated to this size to allow it to overflow
> > > > in
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > + * cases to avoid needless emptying of cache.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + void *objs[RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE * 2]
> > > > __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > > > } __rte_cache_aligned;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think aligning objs on cacheline should be a separate patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point. I'll let you do it. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: Thank you for following up on this patch series, Andrew!
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks for this rework.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > >
> > > Perhaps Reviewed-by would be appropriate?
> >
> > I was thinking that "Acked-by" was commonly used by maintainers, and
> > "Reviewed-by" for reviews by community members. After reading the
> > documentation again, it's not that clear now in my mind :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Olivier
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-18 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-26 15:34 [RFC] mempool: rte_mempool_do_generic_get optimizations Morten Brørup
2022-01-06 12:23 ` [PATCH] mempool: optimize incomplete cache handling Morten Brørup
2022-01-06 16:55 ` Jerin Jacob
2022-01-07 8:46 ` Morten Brørup
2022-01-10 7:26 ` Jerin Jacob
2022-01-10 10:55 ` Morten Brørup
2022-01-14 16:36 ` [PATCH] mempool: fix get objects from mempool with cache Morten Brørup
2022-01-17 17:35 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-01-18 8:25 ` Morten Brørup
2022-01-18 9:07 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-01-24 15:38 ` Olivier Matz
2022-01-24 16:11 ` Olivier Matz
2022-01-28 10:22 ` Morten Brørup
2022-01-17 11:52 ` [PATCH] mempool: optimize put objects to " Morten Brørup
2022-01-19 14:52 ` [PATCH v2] mempool: fix " Morten Brørup
2022-01-19 15:03 ` [PATCH v3] " Morten Brørup
2022-01-24 15:39 ` Olivier Matz
2022-01-28 9:37 ` Morten Brørup
2022-02-02 8:14 ` [PATCH v2] mempool: fix get objects from " Morten Brørup
2022-06-15 21:18 ` Morten Brørup
2022-09-29 10:52 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-04 12:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-04 15:13 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-04 15:58 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-04 18:09 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-06 13:43 ` Aaron Conole
2022-10-04 16:03 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-04 16:36 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-04 16:39 ` Morten Brørup
2022-02-02 10:33 ` [PATCH v4] mempool: fix mempool cache flushing algorithm Morten Brørup
2022-04-07 9:04 ` Morten Brørup
2022-04-07 9:14 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-04-07 9:26 ` Morten Brørup
2022-04-07 10:32 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-04-07 10:43 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-04-07 11:36 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-04 20:01 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-09 11:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] mempool: check driver enqueue result in one place Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 11:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] mempool: avoid usage of term ring on put Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 13:08 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-09 13:14 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 13:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] mempool: check driver enqueue result in one place Morten Brørup
2022-10-09 13:19 ` [PATCH v4] mempool: fix mempool cache flushing algorithm Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-04 12:53 ` [PATCH v3] mempool: fix get objects from mempool with cache Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-04 14:42 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-07 10:44 ` [PATCH v4] " Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-08 20:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-10-11 20:30 ` Copy-pasted code should be updated Morten Brørup
2022-10-11 21:47 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2022-10-30 8:44 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-30 22:50 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2022-10-14 14:01 ` [PATCH v4] mempool: fix get objects from mempool with cache Olivier Matz
2022-10-09 13:37 ` [PATCH v6 0/4] mempool: fix mempool cache flushing algorithm Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 13:37 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] mempool: check driver enqueue result in one place Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 13:37 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] mempool: avoid usage of term ring on put Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 13:37 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] mempool: fix cache flushing algorithm Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 14:31 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-09 14:51 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 15:08 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-14 14:01 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-14 15:57 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-14 19:50 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-15 6:57 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-18 16:32 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2022-10-09 13:37 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] mempool: flush cache completely on overflow Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-09 14:44 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-14 14:01 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-10 15:21 ` [PATCH v6 0/4] mempool: fix mempool cache flushing algorithm Thomas Monjalon
2022-10-11 19:26 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-26 14:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-10-26 14:26 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-26 14:44 ` [PATCH] mempool: cache align mempool cache objects Morten Brørup
2022-10-26 19:44 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-10-27 8:34 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-27 9:22 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-27 11:42 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-27 12:11 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-27 15:20 ` Olivier Matz
2022-10-28 6:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Morten Brørup
2022-10-28 6:35 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mempool: optimized debug statistics Morten Brørup
2022-10-28 6:41 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mempool: cache align mempool cache objects Morten Brørup
2022-10-28 6:41 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] mempool: optimized debug statistics Morten Brørup
2022-10-30 9:09 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-30 9:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-10-30 9:17 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mempool: cache align mempool cache objects Thomas Monjalon
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=CALBAE1P4zFYdLwoQukn5Q-V-nTvc_UBWmWjhaV2uVBXQRytSSA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.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).