On 17/01/2025 12.35, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
On 2025/1/17 2:02, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
Benchmark (bench_page_pool_simple) results from before and after
patchset with patches 1-5m and rcu lock removal as requested.
| Test name |Cycles | 1-5 | | Nanosec | 1-5 | | % |
| (tasklet_*)|Before | After |diff| Before | After | diff | change |
|------------+-------+-------+----+---------+--------+--------+--------|
| fast_path | 19 | 19 | 0| 5.399 | 5.492 | 0.093 | 1.7 |
| ptr_ring | 54 | 57 | 3| 15.090 | 15.849 | 0.759 | 5.0 |
| slow | 238 | 284 | 46| 66.134 | 78.909 | 12.775 | 19.3 |
#+TBLFM: $4=$3-$2::$7=$6-$5::$8=(($7/$5)*100);%.1f
This test with patches 1-5 looks much better regarding performance.
Thanks for the testing.
Is there any notiable performance variation during different test running
for the same built kernel in your machine?
My machine have quite stable performance for this benchmark.
https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/main/areas/mem/page_pool07_bench_DMA_fix.org#e5-1650-pp01-dma-fix-v7-p1-5
Like documented in above link. I have also increased the loops count for
the test to get it more stable, given this will be measured over a
longer period.
modprobe bench_page_pool_simple loops=100000000
Kernel:
- 6.13.0-rc6-pp01-DMA-fix-v7-p1-5+ #5 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jan 16 18:06:53 CET 2025 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Machine: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v4 @ 3.60GHz
modprobe bench_page_pool_simple loops=100000000
Raw data:
[ 187.309423] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool01_fast_path(): Cannot use page_pool fast-path
[ 187.872849] time_bench: Type:no-softirq-page_pool01 Per elem: 19 cycles(tsc) 5.539 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:0.553906443 sec time_interval:553906443) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:1994123064)
[ 187.892023] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool02_ptr_ring(): Cannot use page_pool fast-path
[ 189.611070] time_bench: Type:no-softirq-page_pool02 Per elem: 61 cycles(tsc) 17.095 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:1.709580367 sec time_interval:1709580367) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:6154679394)
[ 189.630414] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool03_slow(): Cannot use page_pool fast-path
[ 197.222387] time_bench: Type:no-softirq-page_pool03 Per elem: 272 cycles(tsc) 75.826 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:7.582681388 sec time_interval:7582681388) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:27298499214)
[ 197.241926] bench_page_pool_simple: pp_tasklet_handler(): in_serving_softirq fast-path
[ 197.249968] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool01_fast_path(): in_serving_softirq fast-path
[ 197.808470] time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool01_fast_path Per elem: 19 cycles(tsc) 5.492 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:0.549225541 sec time_interval:549225541) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:1977272238)
[ 197.828174] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool02_ptr_ring(): in_serving_softirq fast-path
[ 199.422305] time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool02_ptr_ring Per elem: 57 cycles(tsc) 15.849 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:1.584920736 sec time_interval:1584920736) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:5705890830)
[ 199.442087] bench_page_pool_simple: time_bench_page_pool03_slow(): in_serving_softirq fast-path
[ 207.342120] time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool03_slow Per elem: 284 cycles(tsc) 78.909 ns (step:0) - (measurement period time:7.890955151 sec time_interval:7890955151) - (invoke count:100000000 tsc_interval:28408319289)
