[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Accelerator API to chain packet processing functions
david.coyle at intel.com
Thu Feb 6 17:31:41 CET 2020
Hi Jerin, see reply below
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:35 PM Coyle, David <david.coyle at intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jerin,
> Hi David,
> > Thanks for the comments. Please see replies below.
> > Kind Regards,
> > David
> > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:15 PM David Coyle <david.coyle at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Introduction
> > > > ============
> > > >
> > > > This RFC introduces a new DPDK library, rte_accelerator.
> > > >
> > > > The main aim of this library is to provide a flexible and
> > > > extensible way of
> > > combining one or more packet-processing functions into a single
> > > operation, thereby allowing these to be performed in parallel in
> > > optimized software libraries or in a hardware accelerator. These
> > > functions can include cryptography, compression and CRC/checksum
> > > calculation, while others can potentially be added in the future.
> > > Performing these functions in parallel as a single operation can enable a
> significant performance improvement.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Background
> > > > ==========
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of byte-wise operations which are present and
> > > common across many access network data-plane pipelines, such as
> > > Cipher, Authentication, CRC, Bit-Interleaved-Parity (BIP), other
> > > checksums etc. Some prototyping has been done at Intel in relation
> > > to the 01.org access-network- dataplanes project to prove that a
> > > significant performance improvement is possible when such byte-wise
> > > operations are combined into a single pass of packet data
> > > processing. This performance boost has been prototyped for both XGS-
> PON MAC data-plane and DOCSIS MAC data-plane pipelines.
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you share the relative performance numbers to show the gain?
> > [DC] As mentioned above, the main performance gains are when the
> packet processing operations can be combined into a single pass of the
> > Both Crypto-CRC-BIP (for XGS-PON MAC) and Crypto-CRC (for DOCSIS
> MAC) have been implemented in the AESNI MB library as single pass
> operation chains.
> > We have modified the dpdk-crypto-perf-tester as part of our prototyping
> to test the cases where:
> > 1) each packet processing function is done as an independent stage
> > (e.g. calling rte_net_crc for CRC, AESNI MB through rte_cryptodev for
> > cipher, and a C function to calculate the BIP)
> > 2) all packet processing functions done as a single-pass operation in
> > AESNI MB through rte_cryptodev
> > We see the following results for 1024 byte input frames from dpdk-crypto-
> > - XGS-PON MAC (Crypto-CRC-BIP):
> > - 3 independent stages: 1429 cycles/buf (13.75Gbps)
> > - 1 single-pass stage: 896 cycles/buf (21.9Gbps)
> > 37% cycle reduction
> > - DOCSIS MAC (Crypto-CRC):
> > - 2 independent stages: 1421 cycles/buf (13.84Gbps)
> > - 1 single-pass stage: 1133 cycles/buf (17.34Gbps)
> > 20% cycle reduction
> > Adding the accelerator API will allow vendors gain the benefits of
> > these cycle savings
> Numbers make sense. I have seen a similar performance improvement doing
> in one pass with CPU instructions.
> > > > - XGS-PON MAC: Crypto-CRC-BIP
> > > > - Order:
> > > > - Downstream: CRC, Encrypt, BIP
> > >
> > > I understand if the chain has two operations then it may possible to
> > > have handcrafted SW code to do both operations in one pass.
> > > I understand the spec is agnostic on a number of passes it does
> > > require to enable the xfrom but To understand the SW/HW capability,
> > > In the above case, "CRC, Encrypt, BIP", It is done in one pass in SW
> > > or three passes in SW or one pass using HW?
> > [DC] The CRC, Encrypt, BIP is also currently done as 1 pass in AESNI MB
> library SW.
> > However, this could also be performed as a single pass in a HW
> > accelerator
> As a specification, cascading the xform chains make sense.
> Do we have any HW that does support chaining the xforms more than "two"
> in one pass?
> i.e real chaining function where two blocks of HWs work hand in hand for
> If none, it may be better to abstract as synonymous API(No dequeue, no
> enqueue) for the CPU use case.
[DC] I'm not aware of any HW that supports this at the moment, but that's not to say it couldn't in the future - if anyone else has any examples though, please feel free to share.
Regardless, I don't see why we would introduce a different API for SW devices and HW devices.
It would be up to each underlying PMD to decide if/how it supports a particular accelerator xform chain, but from an application's point of view, the accelerator API is always the same
More information about the dev