[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance measurement

Verma, Shally Shally.Verma at cavium.com
Tue Nov 6 09:15:44 CET 2018



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
>Sent: 06 November 2018 13:34
>To: Verma, Shally <Shally.Verma at cavium.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance measurement
>
>External Email
>
>Hi Shally,
>
>Please see my comment inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma at cavium.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 9:34 AM
>> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Trahe,
>> Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
>> Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
>> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance
>> measurement
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
>> >Sent: 02 November 2018 15:29
>> >To: dev at dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>;
>> >akhil.goyal at nxp.com; Verma, Shally <Shally.Verma at cavium.com>; De Lara
>> >Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
>> >Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
>> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance
>> >measurement
>> >
>> >External Email
>> >
>> >Hi Shally,
>> >
>> >Sorry for delay - I was on sick leave.
>> >We had some issues with dynamic compression test so I block this test
>> >in V2. May be there's too late to add this into this release but we've decided
>> to send this V2 to DPDK.
>> >
>> >My comment inline (not all have answer so far, still working on that)
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma at cavium.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:16 PM
>> >> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>> >> Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com; De Lara
>> >> Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
>> >> Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add
>> >> performance measurement
>> >>
>> >> HI TomaszX
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for delay in response. Comments inline.
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Tomasz Jozwiak
>> >> >Sent: 01 October 2018 18:57
>> >> >To: dev at dpdk.org; fiona.trahe at intel.com; tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com;
>> >> >akhil.goyal at nxp.com; pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com
>> >> >Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
>> >> >Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance
>> >> >measurement
>> >> >
>> >> >External Email
>> >> >
>> >> >Added performance measurement part into compression perf. test.
>> >> >
>> >> >Signed-off-by: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> >> ><pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
>> >> >Signed-off-by: Tomasz Jozwiak <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
>> >> >---
>> >> > app/test-compress-perf/main.c | 844
>> >> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> > 1 file changed, 844 insertions(+)
>> >> >
>> >> >diff --git a/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
>> >> >b/app/test-compress-perf/main.c index f52b98d..093dfaf 100644
>> >> >--- a/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
>> >> >+++ b/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
>> >> >@@ -5,13 +5,721 @@
>> >> > #include <rte_malloc.h>
>> >> > #include <rte_eal.h>
>> >> > #include <rte_log.h>
>> >> >+#include <rte_cycles.h>
>> >> > #include <rte_compressdev.h>
>> >> >
>> >> > #include "comp_perf_options.h"
>> >> >
>> >> >+#define NUM_MAX_XFORMS 16
>> >> >+#define NUM_MAX_INFLIGHT_OPS 512
>> >> >+#define EXPANSE_RATIO 1.05
>> >> >+#define MIN_ISAL_SIZE 8
>> >> >+
>> >> >+#define DIV_CEIL(a, b)  ((a) / (b) + ((a) % (b) != 0))
>> >> >+
>> >> >+static int
>> >> >+param_range_check(uint16_t size, const struct rte_param_log2_range
>> >> >+*range) {
>> >> >+       unsigned int next_size;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* Check lower/upper bounds */
>> >> >+       if (size < range->min)
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (size > range->max)
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* If range is actually only one value, size is correct */
>> >> >+       if (range->increment == 0)
>> >> >+               return 0;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* Check if value is one of the supported sizes */
>> >> >+       for (next_size = range->min; next_size <= range->max;
>> >> >+                       next_size += range->increment)
>> >> >+               if (size == next_size)
>> >> >+                       return 0;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       return -1;
>> >> >+}
>> >> >+
>> >> >+static int
>> >> >+comp_perf_check_capabilities(struct comp_test_data *test_data) {
>> >> >+       const struct rte_compressdev_capabilities *cap;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       cap = rte_compressdev_capability_get(test_data->cdev_id,
>> >> >+                                            RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE);
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (cap == NULL) {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                       "Compress device does not support DEFLATE\n");
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       uint64_t comp_flags = cap->comp_feature_flags;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* Huffman enconding */
>> >> >+       if (test_data->huffman_enc == RTE_COMP_HUFFMAN_FIXED &&
>> >> >+                       (comp_flags & RTE_COMP_FF_HUFFMAN_FIXED) == 0) {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                       "Compress device does not supported Fixed Huffman\n");
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (test_data->huffman_enc == RTE_COMP_HUFFMAN_DYNAMIC
>> &&
>> >> >+                       (comp_flags & RTE_COMP_FF_HUFFMAN_DYNAMIC) == 0)
>> {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                       "Compress device does not supported Dynamic
>> Huffman\n");
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* Window size */
>> >> >+       if (test_data->window_sz != -1) {
>> >> >+               if (param_range_check(test_data->window_sz,
>> >> >+ &cap->window_size)
>> >> What if cap->window_size is 0 i.e. implementation default?
>> >
>> >TJ: You probably mean cap->window_size.increment = 0 (because
>> >cap->window_size is a structure). In that case we check if
>> >test_data->window_sz >=min and test_data->window_sz <= max only,
>> because increment = 0 means (base on compression API) we have only one
>> value of windows_size (no range is supported).
>> But PMD can set min and max too 0 for such case.
>
>TJ: I can't see any issue in that case too. Maybe I don't understand what you mean but the logic is as follow:
>1)  if you pass '--window-sz  ...' param. into command line your intention is to force that value of window size during test. We check is
>this value is allow (by param_range_check() function).
>2) if you plan to use default value - just don't pass '--window-sz' param. in command line at all. In that case we get windows size from
>window_size.max field, so if window_size.min= window_size.max=0
>test_data->window_sz will be zero, as well.
>If you mean that behavior is not good - I will be grateful for other suggestions.

This is fine. but I am thinking of 3rd case here:
c) user pass window sz but PMD window_sz.min = max = 0, then user requested windowsz is not applicable right?!

>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ....
>>
>> >> >+
>> >> >+               if (fread(data, data_to_read, 1, f) != 1) {
>> >> >+                       RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Input file could not be read\n");
>> >> >+                       goto err;
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+               if (fseek(f, 0, SEEK_SET) != 0) {
>> >> >+                       RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                               "Size of input could not be calculated\n");
>> >> >+                       goto err;
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+               remaining_data -= data_to_read;
>> >> >+               data += data_to_read;
>> >> It looks like it will run 2nd time only if input file size < input
>> >> data size in which case it will just keep filling input buffer with repeated
>> data.
>> >> Is that the intention here?
>> >
>> >TJ: Yes exactly. If test_data->input_data_sz is bigger than
>> >actual_file_sz then we fill the buffer with repeated data from file to fill
>> whole buffer.
>> I mentioned in one of the earlier reply, wont that then influence the
>> compression behaviour and o/p? my suggestion was to work on actual user
>> provided input to take perf to get actual perf for given content.
>
>TJ: You right, but this solution is flexible. You can pass ' --extended-input-sz" or not, so you can use original input data or extend it if
>you want.
Ok. but still not sure if it's really needed. Might be practically most of the time it wont be exercised. No hard opinion on this though.

Thanks
Shally
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> ...
>>
>> >> >+                       if (data_addr == NULL) {
>> >> >+                               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not
>> >> >+ append data\n");
>> >> Since a new buffer per segment is allocated, so is it possible for
>> >> append to fail? think, this check is redundant here.
>> >
>> >TJ: Yes, you're right, it should never fail. But I think it's good coding practice
>> to add the check just in case.
>> >
>> Unless it is called in data path which might cost perf a bit.
>
>TJ:  prepare_bufs() is out of perf measurement, so shouldn't impact to measurements. The performance measurement is inside
>main_loop() only.
>
>
>Br, Tomek
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shally
>>
>> >> >+                               return -1;
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       rte_memcpy(data_addr, input_data_ptr, data_sz);
>> >> >+                       input_data_ptr += data_sz;
>> >> >+                       remaining_data -= data_sz;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       if (rte_pktmbuf_chain(test_data->decomp_bufs[i],
>> >> >+                                       next_seg) < 0) {
>> >> >+                               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not chain mbufs\n");
>> >> >+                               return -1;
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+                       segs_per_mbuf++;
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+               /* Allocate data in output mbuf */
>> >> >+               test_data->comp_bufs[i] =
>> >> >+                       rte_pktmbuf_alloc(test_data->comp_buf_pool);
>> >> >+               if (test_data->comp_bufs[i] == NULL) {
>> >> >+                       RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not allocate mbuf\n");
>> >> >+                       return -1;
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+               data_addr = (uint8_t *) rte_pktmbuf_append(
>> >> >+                                       test_data->comp_bufs[i],
>> >> >+                                       test_data->seg_sz);
>> >> >+               if (data_addr == NULL) {
>> >> >+                       RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not append data\n");
>> >> >+                       return -1;
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+               /* Chain mbufs if needed for output mbufs */
>> >> >+               for (j = 1; j < segs_per_mbuf; j++) {
>> >> >+                       struct rte_mbuf *next_seg =
>> >> >+
>> >> >+ rte_pktmbuf_alloc(test_data->comp_buf_pool);
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       if (next_seg == NULL) {
>> >> >+                               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                                       "Could not allocate mbuf\n");
>> >> >+                               return -1;
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       data_addr = (uint8_t *)rte_pktmbuf_append(next_seg,
>> >> >+                               test_data->seg_sz);
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       if (data_addr == NULL) {
>> >> >+                               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not append data\n");
>> >> >+                               return -1;
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+                       if (rte_pktmbuf_chain(test_data->comp_bufs[i],
>> >> >+                                       next_seg) < 0) {
>> >> >+                               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not chain mbufs\n");
>> >> >+                               return -1;
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+               }
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       return 0;
>> >> >+}
>> >> >+
>> >> >+static void
>> >> >+free_bufs(struct comp_test_data *test_data) {
>> >> >+       uint32_t i;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       for (i = 0; i < test_data->total_bufs; i++) {
>> >> >+               rte_pktmbuf_free(test_data->comp_bufs[i]);
>> >> >+               rte_pktmbuf_free(test_data->decomp_bufs[i]);
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+       rte_free(test_data->comp_bufs);
>> >> >+       rte_free(test_data->decomp_bufs); }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+static int
>> >> >+main_loop(struct comp_test_data *test_data, uint8_t level,
>> >> >+                       enum rte_comp_xform_type type,
>> >> >+                       uint8_t *output_data_ptr,
>> >> >+                       size_t *output_data_sz,
>> >> >+                       unsigned int benchmarking) {
>> >> >+       uint8_t dev_id = test_data->cdev_id;
>> >> >+       uint32_t i, iter, num_iter;
>> >> >+       struct rte_comp_op **ops, **deq_ops;
>> >> >+       void *priv_xform = NULL;
>> >> >+       struct rte_comp_xform xform;
>> >> >+       size_t output_size = 0;
>> >> >+       struct rte_mbuf **input_bufs, **output_bufs;
>> >> >+       int res = 0;
>> >> >+       int allocated = 0;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (test_data == NULL || !test_data->burst_sz) {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                       "Unknow burst size\n");
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       ops = rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL,
>> >> >+               2 * test_data->total_bufs * sizeof(struct rte_comp_op *),
>> >> >+               0, rte_socket_id());
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (ops == NULL) {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
>> >> >+                       "Can't allocate memory for ops strucures\n");
>> >> >+               return -1;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       deq_ops = &ops[test_data->total_bufs];
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       if (type == RTE_COMP_COMPRESS) {
>> >> >+               xform = (struct rte_comp_xform) {
>> >> >+                       .type = RTE_COMP_COMPRESS,
>> >> >+                       .compress = {
>> >> >+                               .algo = RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE,
>> >> >+                               .deflate.huffman = test_data->huffman_enc,
>> >> >+                               .level = level,
>> >> >+                               .window_size = test_data->window_sz,
>> >> >+                               .chksum = RTE_COMP_CHECKSUM_NONE,
>> >> >+                               .hash_algo = RTE_COMP_HASH_ALGO_NONE
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+               };
>> >> >+               input_bufs = test_data->decomp_bufs;
>> >> >+               output_bufs = test_data->comp_bufs;
>> >> >+       } else {
>> >> >+               xform = (struct rte_comp_xform) {
>> >> >+                       .type = RTE_COMP_DECOMPRESS,
>> >> >+                       .decompress = {
>> >> >+                               .algo = RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE,
>> >> >+                               .chksum = RTE_COMP_CHECKSUM_NONE,
>> >> >+                               .window_size = test_data->window_sz,
>> >> >+                               .hash_algo = RTE_COMP_HASH_ALGO_NONE
>> >> >+                       }
>> >> >+               };
>> >> >+               input_bufs = test_data->comp_bufs;
>> >> >+               output_bufs = test_data->decomp_bufs;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       /* Create private xform */
>> >> >+       if (rte_compressdev_private_xform_create(dev_id, &xform,
>> >> >+                       &priv_xform) < 0) {
>> >> >+               RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Private xform could not be created\n");
>> >> >+               res = -1;
>> >> >+               goto end;
>> >> >+       }
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       uint64_t tsc_start, tsc_end, tsc_duration;
>> >> >+
>> >> >+       tsc_start = tsc_end = tsc_duration = 0;
>> >> >+       if (benchmarking) {
>> >> >+               tsc_start = rte_rdtsc();
>> >> >+               num_iter = test_data->num_iter;
>> >> >+       } else
>> >> >+               num_iter = 1;
>> >> Looks like in same code we're doing benchmarking and functional
>> validation.
>> >> It can be reorganised to keep validation test separately like done in
>> >> crypto_perf.
>> >
>> >TJ: Ok, makes sense. However in the interests of getting this into the
>> >18.11 release I'd like to defer this refactoring and the remainder of your
>> comments below to the next release.
>> >
>> >
>> >Next comments - WIP
>> >
>> >
>> >Br, Tomek


More information about the dev mailing list