[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] event/sw: performance improvements

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

<snip>
> > Add minimum burst throughout the scheduler pipeline and a flush counter.
> > Replace ring API calls with local single threaded implementation where
> > possible.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau mailto:radu.nicolau at intel.com
> >
> > Thanks for the patch, a few comments inline.
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev.h���������� | 11 +++-
> > drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c | 83
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev.h b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev.h
> > index 7c77b2495..95e51065f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev.h
> > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev.h
> > @@ -29,7 +29,13 @@
> >  /* report dequeue burst sizes in buckets */� #define
> > SW_DEQ_STAT_BUCKET_SHIFT 2
> >  /* how many packets pulled from port by sched */ -#define
> > SCHED_DEQUEUE_BURST_SIZE 32
> > +#define SCHED_DEQUEUE_BURST_SIZE 64
> > +
> > +#define SCHED_MIN_BURST_SIZE 8
> > +#define SCHED_NO_ENQ_CYCLE_FLUSH 256
> > +/* set SCHED_DEQUEUE_BURST_SIZE to 64 or 128 when setting this to 1*/
> > +#define SCHED_REFILL_ONCE_PER_CALL 1
> >
> > Is it possible to make the above #define a runtime option?
> > Eg, --vdev event_sw,refill_iter=1
> >
> > That would allow packaged versions of DPDK to be usable in both modes.
> >
> > +
> >
> >  #define SW_PORT_HIST_LIST (MAX_SW_PROD_Q_DEPTH) /* size of our
> > history list */� #define NUM_SAMPLES 64 /* how many data points use
> > for average stats */ @@ -214,6 +220,9 @@ struct sw_evdev {  ���
> > uint32_t xstats_count_mode_port;  ��� uint32_t
> > xstats_count_mode_queue;
> >
> > +��� uint16_t sched_flush_count; ��� uint16_t
> > +sched_min_burst;
> > +
> >  ��� /* Contains all ports - load balanced and directed */
> > ��� struct sw_port ports[SW_PORTS_MAX] __rte_cache_aligned;
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c
> > b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c
> > index cff747da8..ca6d1caff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c
> > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c
> > @@ -26,6 +26,29 @@
> >  /* use cheap bit mixing, we only need to lose a few bits */�
> > #define
> > SW_HASH_FLOWID(f) (((f) ^ (f >> 10)) & FLOWID_MASK)
> >
> > +
> > +/* single object enq and deq for non MT ring */ static
> > +__rte_always_inline void sw_nonmt_ring_dequeue(struct rte_ring *r,
> > +void **obj) { ��� if ((r->prod.tail - r->cons.tail) < 1)
> > +����������� return; ��� void **ring =
> > +(void **)&r[1]; ��� *obj = ring[r->cons.tail & r->mask];
> > +��� r->cons.tail++; } static __rte_always_inline int
> > +sw_nonmt_ring_enqueue(struct rte_ring *r, void *obj) { ��� if
> > +((r->capacity + r->cons.tail - r->prod.tail) < 1)
> > +����������� return 0; ��� void **ring =
> > +(void **)&r[1]; ��� ring[r->prod.tail & r->mask] = obj;
> > +��� r->prod.tail++; ��� return 1;
> > +
> > Why not make these APIs part of the rte_ring library? You could further
> optimize them by keeping the indices on the same cacheline.
> > I'm not sure there is any need for non thread-safe rings outside this
> particular case.
> > [Honnappa] I think if we add the APIs, we will find the use cases.
> > But, more than that, I understand that rte_ring structure is exposed to the
> application. The reason for doing that is the inline functions that rte_ring
> provides. IMO, we should still maintain modularity and should not use the
> internals of the rte_ring structure outside of the library.
> >
> > +1 to that.
> >
> > BTW, is there any real perf benefit from such micor-optimisation?
> 
> I'd tend to view these as use-case specific, and I'm not sure we should clutter
> up the ring library with yet more functions, especially since they can't be
> mixed with the existing enqueue/dequeue functions, since they don't use
> the head pointers.
IMO, the ring library is pretty organized with the recent addition of HTS/RTS modes. This can be one of the modes and should allow us to use the existing functions (though additional functions are required as well).
The other concern I have is, this implementation can be further optimized by using a single cache line for the pointers. It uses 2 cache lines just because of the layout of the rte_ring structure.
There was a question earlier about the performance improvements of this patch? Are there any % performance improvements that can be shared?
It is also possible to change the above functions to use the head/tail pointers from producer or the consumer cache line alone to check for perf differences.