On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 07:20:27AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:00:59AM -0800, Souradeep Chakrabarti wrote: > > Existing MANA design assigns IRQ to every CPU, including sibling > > hyper-threads. This may cause multiple IRQs to be active simultaneously > > in the same core and may reduce the network performance. > > > > Improve the performance by assigning IRQ to non sibling CPUs in local > > NUMA node. The performance improvement we are getting using ntttcp with > > following patch is around 15 percent against existing design and > > approximately 11 percent, when trying to assign one IRQ in each core > > across NUMA nodes, if enough cores are present. > > The change will improve the performance for the system > > with high number of CPU, where number of CPUs in a node is more than > > 64 CPUs. Nodes with 64 CPUs or less than 64 CPUs will not be affected > > by this change. > > > > The performance study was done using ntttcp tool in Azure. > > The node had 2 nodes with 32 cores each, total 128 vCPU and number of channels > > were 32 for 32 RX rings. > > > > The below table shows a comparison between existing design and new > > design: > > > > IRQ node-num core-num CPU performance(%) > > 1 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | 0-1 0 > > 2 0 | 0 0 | 1 1 | 2-3 3 > > 3 0 | 0 1 | 2 2 | 4-5 10 > > 4 0 | 0 1 | 3 3 | 6-7 15 > > 5 0 | 0 2 | 4 4 | 8-9 15 > > --- > > --- > > 25 0 | 0 12| 24 24| 48-49 12 > > --- > > 32 0 | 0 15| 31 31| 62-63 12 > > 33 0 | 0 16| 0 32| 0-1 10 > > --- > > 64 0 | 0 31| 31 63| 62-63 0 > > Did that omitted lines mean 5-24 : 15%, 25-31 : 12% and 33-63 : 10%? They are same like you have mentioned, so I have skipped those ranges. Whereever the major changes were there, I have put them. So it is the full coverage only skimmed a little. > Or that means that you didn't test those? > > Would be nice to have full coverage... > > Thanks, > Yury
