Re: [PATCH] virtio_ring: Shadow available ring flags & index

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/18/2015 12:28 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:08:18PM -0800, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/14/2015 7:41 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:34:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:21:07PM -0800, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>> Improves cacheline transfer flow of available ring header.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Virtqueues are implemented as a pair of rings, one producer->consumer
>>>>>> avail ring and one consumer->producer used ring; preceding the
>>>>>> avail ring in memory are two contiguous u16 fields -- avail->flags
>>>>>> and avail->idx. A producer posts work by writing to avail->idx and
>>>>>> a consumer reads avail->idx.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The flags and idx fields only need to be written by a producer CPU
>>>>>> and only read by a consumer CPU; when the producer and consumer are
>>>>>> running on different CPUs and the virtio_ring code is structured to
>>>>>> only have source writes/sink reads, we can continuously transfer the
>>>>>> avail header cacheline between 'M' states between cores. This flow
>>>>>> optimizes core -> core bandwidth on certain CPUs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (see: "Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 15h Processors",
>>>>>> Section 11.6; similar language appears in the 10h guide and should
>>>>>> apply to CPUs w/ exclusive caches, using LLC as a transfer cache)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the existing virtio_ring code issued reads to the
>>>>>> avail->idx and read-modify-writes to avail->flags on the producer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This change shadows the flags and index fields in producer memory;
>>>>>> the vring code now reads from the shadows and only ever writes to
>>>>>> avail->flags and avail->idx, allowing the cacheline to transfer
>>>>>> core -> core optimally.
>>>>> Sounds logical, I'll apply this after a  bit of testing
>>>>> of my own, thanks!
>>>> Thanks!
>>> Venkatesh:
>>> Is it that your patch only applies to CPUs w/ exclusive caches?
>> No --- it applies when the inter-cache coherence flow is optimized by
>> 'M' -> 'M' transfers and when producer reads might interfere w/
>> consumer prefetchw/reads. The AMD Optimization guides have specific
>> language on this subject, but other platforms may benefit.
>> (see Intel #'s below)
For core2core case(not HT paire), after consumer reads that M cache line
for avail_idx, is that line still in the producer core's L1 data cache
with state changing from M->O state?
>>
>>> Do you have perf data on Intel CPUs?
>> Good idea -- I ran some tests on a couple of Intel platforms:
>>
>> (these are perf data from sample runs; for each I ran many runs, the
>>  numbers were pretty stable except for Haswell-EP cross-socket)
>>
>> One-socket Intel Xeon W3690 ("Westmere"), 3.46 GHz; core turbo disabled
>> =======================================================================
>> (note -- w/ core turbo disabled, performance is _very_ stable; variance of
>>  < 0.5% run-to-run; figure of merit is "seconds elapsed" here)
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to Hyperthread pairs:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 1000000000':
>>
>>  343,425,166,916 L1-dcache-loads
>>       21,393,148 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.01% of all L1-dcache hits
>>   61,709,640,363 L1-dcache-stores
>>        5,745,690 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>   10,186,932,553 L1-dcache-prefetches
>>            1,491 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses
>>    121.335699344 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 1000000000':
>>
>>  334,766,413,861 L1-dcache-loads
>>       15,787,778 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.00% of all L1-dcache hits
>>   62,735,792,799 L1-dcache-stores
>>        3,252,113 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>    9,018,273,596 L1-dcache-prefetches
>>              819 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses
>>    121.206339656 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Effectively Performance-neutral.
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to separate cores, same socket:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 1000000000':
>>
>>    399,943,384,509 L1-dcache-loads
>>      8,868,334,693 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.22% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     62,721,376,685 L1-dcache-stores
>>      2,786,806,982 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>     10,915,046,967 L1-dcache-prefetches
>>            328,508 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses
>>      146.585969976 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 1000000000':
>>
>>    425,123,067,750 L1-dcache-loads 
>>      6,689,318,709 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    1.57% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     62,747,525,005 L1-dcache-stores 
>>      2,496,274,505 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>      8,627,873,397 L1-dcache-prefetches
>>            146,729 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses
>>      142.657327765 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> 2.6% reduction in runtime; note that L1-dcache-load-misses reduced
>> dramatically, 2 Billion(!) L1d misses saved.
>>
>> Two-socket Intel Sandy Bridge(-EP) Xeon, 2.6 GHz; core turbo disabled
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to Hyperthread pairs:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 100000000':
>>
>>     37,129,070,402 L1-dcache-loads
>>          6,416,246 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.02% of all L1-dcache hits
>>      6,207,794,675 L1-dcache-stores
>>          2,800,094 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>       17.029790809 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 100000000':
>>
>>     36,799,559,391 L1-dcache-loads
>>         10,241,080 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.03% of all L1-dcache hits
>>      6,312,252,458 L1-dcache-stores
>>          2,742,239 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>       16.941001709 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Effectively Performance-neutral.
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to separate cores, same socket:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 100000000':
>>
>>     27,684,883,046 L1-dcache-loads
>>        809,933,091 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.93% of all L1-dcache hits
>>      6,219,598,352 L1-dcache-stores
>>          1,758,503 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>       15.020511218 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 100000000':
>>
>>     28,092,111,012 L1-dcache-loads                     
>>        716,687,011 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.55% of all L1-dcache hits 
>>      6,290,821,211 L1-dcache-stores 
>>          1,565,583 L1-dcache-store-misses                                    
>>       15.208420297 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Effectively Performance-neutral.
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to separate cores, cross socket:
>> (Sandy Bridge-EP appears to have less cross-socket variance than Haswell-EP)
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 100000000':
>>
>>     35,857,245,449 L1-dcache-loads
>>        821,746,755 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.29% of all L1-dcache hits
>>      6,252,551,550 L1-dcache-stores
>>          4,665,405 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>       46.340035651 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 100000000':
>>
>>     39,044,022,857 L1-dcache-loads
>>        711,731,527 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    1.82% of all L1-dcache hits
>>      6,349,051,557 L1-dcache-stores
>>          4,292,362 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>       42.593259436 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Runtimes for the cross-socket test have somewhat higher variance, but the
>> pattern in counts of L1-dcache-loads and L1-dcache-load-misses for nonshadow
>> vs. shadow code is very stable.
>>
>> noshadow (w/o this patch) reliably clocks in at ~46 seconds, shadow ranges
>> from ~48 to ~42 (-2.8% to +8.0%).
>>
>> Two-socket Intel Haswell(-EP) Xeon, 2.3 GHz; core turbo disabled
>> ================================================================
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to Hyperthread pairs:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 10000000000':
>>
>>    474,856,463,271 L1-dcache-loads
>>         74,223,784 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.02% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     87,274,898,671 L1-dcache-stores
>>         31,869,448 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>      243.290969318 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 10000000000':
>>
>>    466,891,993,302 L1-dcache-loads
>>         80,859,208 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    0.02% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     88,760,627,355 L1-dcache-stores
>>         35,727,720 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>      242.146970822 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Effectively Performance-neutral.
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to separate cores, same socket:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow 10000000000':
>>
>>    357,657,891,797 L1-dcache-loads
>>      8,760,549,978 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.45% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     87,357,651,103 L1-dcache-stores
>>         10,166,431 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>      229.733047436 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow 10000000000':
>>
>>    382,508,881,516 L1-dcache-loads
>>      8,348,013,630 L1-dcache-load-misses     #    2.18% of all L1-dcache hits
>>     88,756,639,931 L1-dcache-stores
>>          9,842,999 L1-dcache-store-misses
>>      230.850697668 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Effectively Performance-neutral.
>>
>> * Producer / consumer bound to separate cores, different sockets:
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't have useful numbers for this case -- even with
>> core turbo disabled, runtime variance is very high (10 - 30% run-to-run).
>>
>>> For the perf metric you provide, why not L1-dcache-load-misses which is
>>> more meaning full?
>> L1-dcache-load-misses is a better metric, you're right; for the original
>> AMD Piledriver run I posted:
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_noshadow':
>>      5,451,082,016      L1-dcache-loads
>>         31,690,398      L1-dcache-load-misses
>>         60,288,052      L1-dcache-stores
>>         60,517,840      LLC-loads
>>              9,726      LLC-load-misses
>>        2.221477739      seconds time elapsed
>>  
>>  Performance counter stats for './vring_bench_shadow':
>>      5,405,701,361      L1-dcache-loads
>>         31,157,235      L1-dcache-load-misses
>>         59,172,380      L1-dcache-stores
>>         59,398,269      LLC-loads
>>             10,944      LLC-load-misses
>>        2.168405376      seconds time elapsed
>>
>> There is a 1.6% reduction in L1-dcache-load-misses, which lines up with
>> about a 2% reduction in runtime.
>>
>> Summary:
>> * No workload on Westmere 1S, Sandy Bridge 2S, and Haswell 2S got worse;
>> * Westmere 1S cross-core improved by ~2.5% reliably;
>> * Sandy Bridge 2S cross-core cross-socket may have improved. (cross-socket
>>   run variance makes it hard to tell)
>> * AMD Piledriver tests improved by ~2%;
>> * Other virtio implementations (over PCIe for example) should benefit;
>>
>> HTH,
>> -- vs;
> I'm sorry -- I appear to have added an unintentional HTML draft part to my
> reply. This would prevent the message from appearing on the kvm@ mailing list
> at the minimum.
>
> Re-posting with the HTML part scrubbed.
>
> Sorry,
> -- vs;
>

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux