From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <zhihong.wang@intel.com> Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E143D1F5 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:52:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 22:46:19 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,453,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="674619845" Received: from kmsmsx151.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.86]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 22:52:07 -0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.70) by KMSMSX151.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:52:05 +0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.64]) by SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.231]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:52:03 +0800 From: "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com> To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Marc Sune <marc.sune@bisdn.de> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization Thread-Index: AQHQM+g93pBJjc9asEOmHYpPzg55ApzITFZAgADkUQ+AALooEIAAqi6qgAKzAaA= Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:52:03 +0000 Message-ID: <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E760527@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1421632414-10027-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <20150119130221.GB21790@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75EFFE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20150120151118.GD18449@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150120161453.GA5316@bricha3-MOBL3> <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75F664@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <54BF9D59.7070104@bisdn.de> <20150121130234.GB10756@bricha3-MOBL3> <54BFA7D5.7020106@bisdn.de> <20150121132620.GC10756@bricha3-MOBL3> In-Reply-To: <20150121132620.GC10756@bricha3-MOBL3> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization 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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:52:10 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:26 PM > To: Marc Sune > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization >=20 > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:21:25PM +0100, Marc Sune wrote: > > > > On 21/01/15 14:02, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:36:41PM +0100, Marc Sune wrote: > > >>On 21/01/15 04:44, Wang, Zhihong wrote: > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>From: Richardson, Bruce > > >>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:15 AM > > >>>>To: Neil Horman > > >>>>Cc: Wang, Zhihong; dev@dpdk.org > > >>>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization > > >>>> > > >>>>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:11:18AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > >>>>>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:44AM +0000, Wang, Zhihong wrote: > > >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > >>>>>>>Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 9:02 PM > > >>>>>>>To: Wang, Zhihong > > >>>>>>>Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:53:30AM +0800, > > >>>>>>>zhihong.wang@intel.com > > >>>>wrote: > > >>>>>>>>This patch set optimizes memcpy for DPDK for both SSE and AVX > > >>>>platforms. > > >>>>>>>>It also extends memcpy test coverage with unaligned cases and > > >>>>>>>>more test > > >>>>>>>points. > > >>>>>>>>Optimization techniques are summarized below: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>1. Utilize full cache bandwidth > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>2. Enforce aligned stores > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>3. Apply load address alignment based on architecture features > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>4. Make load/store address available as early as possible > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>5. General optimization techniques like inlining, branch > > >>>>>>>>reducing, prefetch pattern access > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Zhihong Wang (4): > > >>>>>>>> Disabled VTA for memcpy test in app/test/Makefile > > >>>>>>>> Removed unnecessary test cases in test_memcpy.c > > >>>>>>>> Extended test coverage in test_memcpy_perf.c > > >>>>>>>> Optimized memcpy in arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h for both SSE > and AVX > > >>>>>>>> platforms > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> app/test/Makefile | 6 + > > >>>>>>>> app/test/test_memcpy.c | 52 +- > > >>>>>>>> app/test/test_memcpy_perf.c | 238 ++++= +--- > > >>>>>>>> .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h | 664 > > >>>>>>>+++++++++++++++------ > > >>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 656 insertions(+), 304 deletions(-) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>-- > > >>>>>>>>1.9.3 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Are you able to compile this with gcc 4.9.2? The compilation > > >>>>>>>of test_memcpy_perf is taking forever for me. It appears hung. > > >>>>>>>Neil > > >>>>>>Neil, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Thanks for reporting this! > > >>>>>>It should compile but will take quite some time if the CPU > > >>>>>>doesn't support > > >>>>AVX2, the reason is that: > > >>>>>>1. The SSE & AVX memcpy implementation is more complicated > than > > >>>>AVX2 > > >>>>>>version thus the compiler takes more time to compile and optimize > 2. > > >>>>>>The new test_memcpy_perf.c contains 126 constants memcpy calls > > >>>>>>for better test case coverage, that's quite a lot > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I've just tested this patch on an Ivy Bridge machine with GCC 4.9= .2: > > >>>>>>1. The whole compile process takes 9'41" with the original > > >>>>>>test_memcpy_perf.c (63 + 63 =3D 126 constant memcpy calls) 2. It > > >>>>>>takes only 2'41" after I reduce the constant memcpy call number > > >>>>>>to 12 + 12 =3D 24 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I'll reduce memcpy call in the next version of patch. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>ok, thank you. I'm all for optimzation, but I think a compile > > >>>>>that takes almost > > >>>>>10 minutes for a single file is going to generate some raised > > >>>>>eyebrows when end users start tinkering with it > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Neil > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Zhihong (John) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>Even two minutes is a very long time to compile, IMHO. The whole > > >>>>of DPDK doesn't take that long to compile right now, and that's > > >>>>with a couple of huge header files with routing tables in it. Any > > >>>>chance you could cut compile time down to a few seconds while still > having reasonable tests? > > >>>>Also, when there is AVX2 present on the system, what is the > > >>>>compile time like for that code? > > >>>> > > >>>> /Bruce > > >>>Neil, Bruce, > > >>> > > >>>Some data first. > > >>> > > >>>Sandy Bridge without AVX2: > > >>>1. original w/ 10 constant memcpy: 2'25" > > >>>2. patch w/ 12 constant memcpy: 2'41" > > >>>3. patch w/ 63 constant memcpy: 9'41" > > >>> > > >>>Haswell with AVX2: > > >>>1. original w/ 10 constant memcpy: 1'57" > > >>>2. patch w/ 12 constant memcpy: 1'56" > > >>>3. patch w/ 63 constant memcpy: 3'16" > > >>> > > >>>Also, to address Bruce's question, we have to reduce test case to cu= t > down compile time. Because we use: > > >>>1. intrinsics instead of assembly for better flexibility and can > > >>>utilize more compiler optimization 2. complex function body for > > >>>better performance 3. inlining This increases compile time. > > >>>But I think it'd be okay to do that as long as we can select a fair = set of > test points. > > >>> > > >>>It'd be great if you could give some suggestion, say, 12 points. > > >>> > > >>>Zhihong (John) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>While I agree in the general case these long compilation times is > > >>painful for the users, having a factor of 2-8x in memcpy operations > > >>is quite an improvement, specially in DPDK applications which need > > >>to deal > > >>(unfortunately) heavily on them -- e.g. IP fragmentation and reassemb= ly. > > >> > > >>Why not having a fast compilation by default, and a tunable config > > >>flag to enable a highly optimized version of rte_memcpy (e.g. > RTE_EAL_OPT_MEMCPY)? > > >> > > >>Marc > > >> > > >Out of interest, are these 2-8x improvements something you have > > >benchmarked in these app scenarios? [i.e. not just in micro-benchmarks= ]. > > > > How much that micro-speedup will end up affecting the performance of > > the entire application is something I cannot say, so I agree that we > > should probably have some additional benchmarks before deciding that > > pays off maintaining 2 versions of rte_memcpy. > > > > There are however a bunch of possible DPDK applications that could > > potentially benefit; IP fragmentation, tunneling and specialized DPI > > applications, among others, since they involve a reasonable amount of > > memcpys per pkt. My point was, *if* it proves that is enough > > beneficial, why not having it optionally? > > > > Marc >=20 > I agree, if it provides the speedups then we need to have it in - and qui= te > possibly on by default, even. >=20 > /Bruce Since we're clear now that the long compile time is mainly caused by too ma= ny inline function calls, I think it's okay not to do this. Would you agree? Zhihong (John)