On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:48:45AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> When getting objects from the mempool, the number of objects to get is
> often constant at build time.
>
> This patch adds another code path for this case, so the compiler can
> optimize more, e.g. unroll the copy loop when the entire request is
> satisfied from the cache.
>
> On an Intel(R) Xeon(R) E5-2620 v4 CPU, and compiled with gcc 9.4.0,
> mempool_perf_test with constant n shows an increase in rate_persec by an
> average of 17 %, minimum 9.5 %, maximum 24 %.
>
> The code path where the number of objects to get is unknown at build time
> remains essentially unchanged.
>
> Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
Change looks a good idea. Some suggestions inline below, which you may want to
take on board for any future version. I'd strongly suggest adding some
extra clarifying code comments, as I suggest below.
With those exta code comments:
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> ---
> lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
> index 9f530db24b..ade0100ec7 100644
> --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
> +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
> @@ -1500,15 +1500,33 @@ rte_mempool_do_generic_get(struct rte_mempool *mp,
> void **obj_table,
> if (unlikely(cache == NULL))
> goto driver_dequeue;
>
> - /* Use the cache as much as we have to return hot objects first */
> - len = RTE_MIN(remaining, cache->len);
> cache_objs = &cache->objs[cache->len];
> +
> + if (__extension__(__builtin_constant_p(n)) && n <= cache->len) {
> + /*
> + * The request size is known at build time, and
> + * the entire request can be satisfied from the cache,
> + * so let the compiler unroll the fixed length copy loop.
> + */
> + cache->len -= n;
> + for (index = 0; index < n; index++)
> + *obj_table++ = *--cache_objs;
> +
This loop looks a little awkward to me. Would it be clearer (and perhaps
easier for compilers to unroll efficiently if it was rewritten as:
cache->len -= n;
cache_objs = &cache->objs[cache->len];
for (index = 0; index < n; index++)
obj_table[index] = cache_objs[index];
alternatively those last two lines can be replaced by a memcpy, which the
compiler should nicely optimize itself, for constant size copy:
memcpy(obj_table, cache_objs, sizeof(obj_table[0]) * n);
> + RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_STAT_ADD(cache, get_success_bulk, 1);
> + RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_STAT_ADD(cache, get_success_objs, n);
> +
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /* Use the cache as much as we have to return hot objects first */
> + len = __extension__(__builtin_constant_p(n)) ? cache->len :
> + RTE_MIN(remaining, cache->len);
This line confused me a lot, until I applied the patch and stared at it a
lot :-). Why would the length value depend upon whether or not n is a
compile-time constant?
I think it would really help here to add in a comment stating that when n
is a compile-time constant, at this point it much be "> cache->len" since
the previous block was untaken, therefore we don't need to call RTE_MIN.
> cache->len -= len;
> remaining -= len;
> for (index = 0; index < len; index++)
> *obj_table++ = *--cache_objs;
>
> - if (remaining == 0) {
> + if (!__extension__(__builtin_constant_p(n)) && remaining == 0) {
> /* The entire request is satisfied from the cache. */
>
> RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_STAT_ADD(cache, get_success_bulk, 1);
Once I'd worked out the logic for the above conditional check, then this
conditional adjustment was clear. I just wonder if a further comment might
help here.
I am also wondering if having larger blocks for the constant and
non-constant cases may help. It would lead to some duplication but may
clarify the code.
> --
> 2.17.1
>
