[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] [PATCH 1/1] mbuf: move pool pointer in first half

Morten Brørup mb at smartsharesystems.com
Tue Nov 10 08:15:58 CET 2020


> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 7:05 PM
> 
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:21:02 +0100
> Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> 
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Richardson
> > > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:06 AM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:16:27AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > +CC techboard
> > > >
> > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk at gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 6:18 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 2:03 AM Thomas Monjalon
> > > <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 07/11/2020 20:05, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 12:09 AM Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 07/11/2020 18:12, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 10:04 PM Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The mempool pointer in the mbuf struct is moved
> > > > > > > > > > from the second to the first half.
> > > > > > > > > > It should increase performance on most systems having
> 64-
> > > byte
> > > > > cache line,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > i.e. mbuf is split in two cache lines.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But In any event, Tx needs to touch the pool to freeing
> > > back to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > pool upon  Tx completion. Right?
> > > > > > > > > Not able to understand the motivation for moving it to
> the
> > > > > first 64B cache line?
> > > > > > > > > The gain varies from driver to driver. For example, a
> > > Typical
> > > > > > > > > ARM-based NPU does not need to
> > > > > > > > > touch the pool in Rx and its been filled by HW. Whereas
> it
> > > > > needs to
> > > > > > > > > touch in Tx if the reference count is implemented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Due to this change, tx_offload is moved, so some
> vector
> > > data
> > > > > paths
> > > > > > > > > > may need to be adjusted. Note: OCTEON TX2 check is
> > > removed
> > > > > temporarily!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It will be breaking the Tx path, Please just don't
> remove
> > > the
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > > assert without adjusting the code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course not.
> > > > > > > > I looked at the vector Tx path of OCTEON TX2,
> > > > > > > > it's close to be impossible to understand :)
> > > > > > > > Please help!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Off course. Could you check the above section any share the
> > > > > rationale
> > > > > > > for this change
> > > > > > > and where it helps and how much it helps?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has been concluded in the techboard meeting you were part
> of.
> > > > > > I don't understand why we restart this discussion again.
> > > > > > I won't have the energy to restart this process myself.
> > > > > > If you don't want to apply the techboard decision, then
> please
> > > > > > do the necessary to request another quick decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Initially, I thought it is OK as we have 128B CL, After
> > > looking
> > > > > into Thomas's change, I realized
> > > > > it is not good for ARM64 64B catchlines based NPU as
> > > > > - A Typical  ARM-based NPU does not need to touch the pool in
> Rx
> > > and
> > > > > its been filled by HW. Whereas it needs to
> > > > > touch in Tx if the reference count is implemented.
> > > >
> > > > Jerin, I don't understand what the problem is here...
> > > >
> > > > Since RX doesn't touch m->pool, it shouldn't matter for RX which
> > > cache line m->pool resides in. I get that.
> > > >
> > > > You are saying that TX needs to touch m->pool if the reference
> count
> > > is implemented. I get that. But I don't understand why it is worse
> > > having m->pool in the first cache line than in the second cache
> line;
> > > can you please clarify?
> > > >
> > > > > - Also it will be effecting exiting vector routines
> > > >
> > > > That is unavoidable if we move something from the second to the
> first
> > > cache line.
> > > >
> > > > It may require some rework on the vector routines, but it
> shouldn't
> > > be too difficult for whoever wrote these vector routines.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I request to reconsider the tech board decision.
> > > >
> > > > I was on the techboard meeting as an observer (or whatever the
> > > correct term would be for non-members), and this is my impression
> of
> > > the decision on the meeting:
> > > >
> > > > The techboard clearly decided not to move any dynamic fields in
> the
> > > first cache line, on the grounds that if we move them away again in
> a
> > > later version, DPDK users utilizing a dynamic field in the first
> cache
> > > line might experience a performance drop at that later time. And
> this
> > > will be a very bad user experience, causing grief and complaints.
> To
> > > me, this seemed like a firm decision, based on solid arguments.
> > > >
> > > > Then the techboard discussed which other field to move to the
> freed
> > > up space in the first cache line. There were no performance reports
> > > showing any improvements by moving the any of the suggested fields
> (m-
> > > >pool, m->next, m->tx_offload), and there was a performance report
> > > showing no improvements by moving m->next in a test case with large
> > > segmented packets. The techboard decided to move m->pool as
> originally
> > > suggested. To me, this seemed like a somewhat random choice between
> A,
> > > B and C, on the grounds that moving one of them is probably better
> than
> > > moving none of them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This largely tallies with what I remember of the discussion too.
> > >
> > > I'd also add though that the choice between the next pointer and
> the
> > > pool
> > > pointer came down to the fact that the next pointer is only used
> for
> > > chained, multi-segment, packets - which also tend to be larger
> packets
> > > -
> > > while the pool pointer is of relevance to all packets, big and
> small,
> > > single and multi-segment.
> >
> > I wish that was the case, but I am not so sure...
> >
> > It is true that m->next is NULL for non-segmented packets.
> 
> Yes m->next is NULL for non-segmented packets.
> Do we need to modify rte_mbuf_check() to enforce these checks?

I went through rte_mbuf_check() in my head, and it already enforces this check:
When called with is_header set, the function proceeds to count the number of segments by following the m->next chain (while m->next is not NULL), and checks that the count matches m->nb_segs.
The loop in the function (used when called with is_header set) is implemented to also check that m->nb_segs == 1 when m->next == NULL.




More information about the dev mailing list