Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Slava Ovsiienko
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:03 PM
> >
> > Hi, Morten
> >
> > > From: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 14:10
> > >
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 4:58 PM
> > > >
> > > > +Cc techboard
> > > >
> > > > We need benchmark numbers in order to take a decision.
> > > > Please all, prepare some arguments and numbers so we can discuss
> > the
> > > > mbuf layout in the next techboard meeting.
I did some quick tests, and it appears to me that just moving the pool
pointer to the first cache line has not a significant impact.
However, I agree with Morten that there is some room for optimization
around m->pool: I did a hack in the ixgbe driver to assume there is only
one mbuf pool. This simplifies a lot the freeing of mbufs in Tx, because
we don't have to group them in bulks that shares the same pool (see
ixgbe_tx_free_bufs()). The impact of this hack is quite good: +~5% on a
real-life forwarding use case.
It is maybe possible to store the pool in the sw ring to avoid a later
access to m->pool. Having a pool index as suggested by Morten would also
help to reduce used room in sw ring in this case. But this is a bit
off-topic :)
> > > I propose that the techboard considers this from two angels:
> > >
> > > 1. Long term goals and their relative priority. I.e. what can be
> > achieved with
> > > wide-ranging modifications, requiring yet another ABI break and due
> > notices.
> > >
> > > 2. Short term goals, i.e. what can be achieved for this release.
> > >
> > >
> > > My suggestions follow...
> > >
> > > 1. Regarding long term goals:
> > >
> > > I have argued that simple forwarding of non-segmented packets using
> > only the
> > > first mbuf cache line can be achieved by making three
> > > modifications:
> > >
> > > a) Move m->tx_offload to the first cache line.
> > Not all PMDs use this field on Tx. HW might support the checksum
> > offloads
> > directly, not requiring these fields at all.
To me, a driver should use m->tx_offload, because the application
specifies the offset where the checksum has to be done, in case the hw
is not able to recognize the protocol.
> > > b) Use an 8 bit pktmbuf mempool index in the first cache line,
> > > instead of the 64 bit m->pool pointer in the second cache line.
> > 256 mpool looks enough, as for me. Regarding the indirect access to the
> > pool
> > (via some table) - it might introduce some performance impact.
>
> It might, but I hope that it is negligible, so the benefits outweigh the
> disadvantages.
>
> It would have to be measured, though.
>
> And m->pool is only used for free()'ing (and detach()'ing) mbufs.
>
> > For example,
> > mlx5 PMD strongly relies on pool field for allocating mbufs in Rx
> > datapath.
> > We're going to update (o-o, we found point to optimize), but for now it
> > does.
>
> Without looking at the source code, I don't think the PMD is using m->pool in
> the RX datapath, I think it is using a pool dedicated to a receive queue used
> for RX descriptors in the PMD (i.e. driver->queue->pool).
>
> >
> > > c) Do not access m->next when we know that it is NULL.
> > > We can use m->nb_segs == 1 or some other invariant as the gate.
> > > It can be implemented by adding an m->next accessor function:
> > > struct rte_mbuf * rte_mbuf_next(struct rte_mbuf * m)
> > > {
> > > return m->nb_segs == 1 ? NULL : m->next;
> > > }
> >
> > Sorry, not sure about this. IIRC, nb_segs is valid in the first
> > segment/mbuf only.
> > If we have the 4 segments in the pkt we see nb_seg=4 in the first one,
> > and the nb_seg=1
> > in the others. The next field is NULL in the last mbuf only. Am I wrong
> > and miss something ?
>
> You are correct.
>
> This would have to be updated too. Either by increasing m->nb_seg in the
> following segments, or by splitting up relevant functions into functions for
> working on first segments (incl. non-segmented packets), and functions for
> working on following segments of segmented packets.
Instead of maintaining a valid nb_segs, a HAS_NEXT flag would be easier
to implement. However it means that an accessor needs to be used instead
of any m->next access.
> > > Regarding the priority of this goal, I guess that simple forwarding
> > of non-
> > > segmented packets is probably the path taken by the majority of
> > packets
> > > handled by DPDK.
> > >
> > > An alternative goal could be:
> > > Do not touch the second cache line during RX.
> > > A comment in the mbuf structure says so, but it is not true anymore.
> > >
> > > (I guess that regression testing didn't catch this because the tests
> > perform TX
> > > immediately after RX, so the cache miss just moves from the TX to the
> > RX part
> > > of the test application.)
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. Regarding short term goals:
> > >
> > > The current DPDK source code looks to me like m->next is the most
> > frequently
> > > accessed field in the second cache line, so it makes sense moving
> > this to the
> > > first cache line, rather than m->pool.
> > > Benchmarking may help here.
> >
> > Moreover, for the segmented packets the packet size is supposed to be
> > large,
> > and it imposes the relatively low packet rate, so probably optimization
> > of
> > moving next to the 1st cache line might be negligible at all. Just
> > compare 148Mpps of
> > 64B pkts and 4Mpps of 3000B pkts over 100Gbps link. Currently we are on
> > benchmarking
> > and did not succeed yet on difference finding. The benefit can't be
> > expressed in mpps delta,
> > we should measure CPU clocks, but Rx queue is almost always empty - we
> > have an empty
> > loops. So, if we have the boost - it is extremely hard to catch one.
>
> Very good point regarding the value of such an optimization, Slava!
>
> And when free()'ing packets, both m->next and m->pool are touched.
>
> So perhaps the free()/detach() functions in the mbuf library can be modified
> to handle first segments (and non-segmented packets) and following segments
> differently, so accessing m->next can be avoided for non-segmented packets.
> Then m->pool should be moved to the first cache line.
>
I also think that Moving m->pool without doing something else about
m->next is probably useless. And it's too late for 20.11 to do
additionnal changes, so I suggest to postpone the field move to 21.11,
once we have a clearer view of possible optimizations.
Olivier
