On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 09:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:44 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:18 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > attached patch brings much better results
> > > > >
> > > > > lpq83:~# ./netperf -H 7.7.8.84 -l 10 -Cc
> > > > > MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> > > > > 7.7.8.84 () port 0 AF_INET
> > > > > Recv Send Send Utilization
> > > > > Service Demand
> > > > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send
> > > > > Recv
> > > > > Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local
> > > > > remote
> > > > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB
> > > > > us/KB
> > > > >
> > > > > 87380 16384 16384 10.00 8043.82 2.32 5.34 0.566
> > > > > 1.304
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> > > > > b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ static unsigned do_csum(const unsigned char *buff,
> > > > > unsigned len)
> > > > > zero = 0;
> > > > > count64 = count >> 3;
> > > > > while (count64) {
> > > > > - asm("addq 0*8(%[src]),%[res]\n\t"
> > > > > + asm("prefetch 5*64(%[src])\n\t"
> > > >
> > > > Might the prefetch size be too big here?
> > >
> > > To be effective, you need to prefetch well ahead of time.
> >
> > No doubt.
>
> So why did you ask then?
>
> > > 5*64 seems common practice (check arch/x86/lib/copy_page_64.S)
> >
> > 5 cachelines for some processors seems like a lot.
>
> What processors would that be?
The ones where conservatism in L1 cache use is good
because there are multiple threads running concurrently.
> Most processors have hundreds of cachelines even in their L1 cache.
And sometimes that many executable processes too.
> Thousands in the L2 cache, up to hundreds of thousands.
Irrelevant because prefetch doesn't apply there.
Ingo, Eric _showed_ that the prefetch is good here.
How about looking at a little optimization to the minimal
prefetch that gives that level of performance.
You could argue that prefetching PAGE_SIZE or larger
would be better still otherwise.
I suspect that using a smaller multiple of
L1_CACHE_BYTES like 2 or 3 would perform the same.
The last time it was looked at for copy_page_64.S was
quite awhile ago. It looks like maybe 2003.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
