On Thu, 23 May 2019 22:51:34 +0900
Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19/05/23 (木) 22:29:27, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 May 2019 20:35:50 +0900
> > Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2019/05/23 20:25, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >>> Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> This improves XDP_TX performance by about 8%.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are single core XDP_TX test results. CPU consumptions are taken
> >>>> from "perf report --no-child".
> >>>>
> >>>> - Before:
> >>>>
> >>>> 7.26 Mpps
> >>>>
> >>>> _raw_spin_lock 7.83%
> >>>> veth_xdp_xmit 12.23%
> >>>>
> >>>> - After:
> >>>>
> >>>> 7.84 Mpps
> >>>>
> >>>> _raw_spin_lock 1.17%
> >>>> veth_xdp_xmit 6.45%
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/veth.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/veth.c b/drivers/net/veth.c
> >>>> index 52110e5..4edc75f 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/veth.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/veth.c
> >>>> @@ -442,6 +442,23 @@ static int veth_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void veth_xdp_flush_bq(struct net_device *dev)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct xdp_tx_bulk_queue *bq = this_cpu_ptr(&xdp_tx_bq);
> >>>> + int sent, i, err = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + sent = veth_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q, 0);
> >>>
> >>> Wait, veth_xdp_xmit() is just putting frames on a pointer ring. So
> >>> you're introducing an additional per-cpu bulk queue, only to avoid lock
> >>> contention around the existing pointer ring. But the pointer ring is
> >>> per-rq, so if you have lock contention, this means you must have
> >>> multiple CPUs servicing the same rq, no?
> >>
> >> Yes, it's possible. Not recommended though.
> >>
> >
> > I think the general per-cpu TX bulk queue is overkill. There is a loop
> > over packets in veth_xdp_rcv(struct veth_rq *rq, budget, *status), and
> > the caller veth_poll() will call veth_xdp_flush(rq->dev).
> >
> > Why can't you store this "temp" bulk array in struct veth_rq ?
>
> Of course I can. But I thought tun has the same problem and we can
> decrease memory footprint by sharing the same storage between devices.
> Or if other devices want to reduce queues so that we can use XDP on
> many-cpu servers and introduce locks, we can use this storage for
> that case as well.
>
> Still do you prefer veth-specific solution?
Yes. Another reason is that with this shared/general per-cpu TX bulk
queue, I can easily see bugs resulting in xdp_frames getting
transmitted on a completely other NIC, which will be hard to debug for
people.
> >
> > You could even alloc/create it on the stack of veth_poll() and send
> > it along via a pointer to veth_xdp_rcv).
IHMO it would be cleaner code wise to place the "temp" bulk array in
struct veth_rq. But if you worry about performance and want a hot
cacheline for this, then you could just use the call-stack for
veth_poll(), as I described. It should not be too ugly code wise to do
this I think.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
