netdev - Re: Optimizing instruction-cache, more packets at each stage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:07:43 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
	Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Amir Vadai <amirva@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Optimizing instruction-cache, more packets at each stage

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:48:36 -0800
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 08:38 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, but the receive path is parallelized.
>>
>> This is true for multiqueue processing, assuming you can dedicate many
>> cores to process RX.
>>
>> >  Improving parallelism has
>> > continuously shown to have much more impact than attempting to
>> > optimize for cache misses. The primary goal is not to drive 100Gbps
>> > with 64 packets from a single CPU. It is one benchmark of many we
>> > should look at to measure efficiency of the data path, but I've yet to
>> > see any real workload that requires that...
>> >
>> > Regardless of anything, we need to load packet headers into CPU cache
>> > to do protocol processing. I'm not sure I see how trying to defer that
>> > as long as possible helps except in cases where the packet is crossing
>> > CPU cache boundaries and can eliminate cache misses completely (not
>> > just move them around from one function to another).
>>
>> Note that some user space use multiple core (or hyper threads) to
>> implement a pipeline, using a single RX queue.
>>
>> One thread can handle one stage (device RX drain) and prefetch data into
>> shared L1/L2 (and/or shared L3 for pipelines with more than 2 threads)
>>
>> The second thread process packets with headers already in L1/L2
>
> I agree. I've heard experiences where DPDK users use 2 core for RX, and
> 1 core for TX, and achieve 10G wirespeed (14Mpps) real IPv4 forwarding
> with full Internet routing table look up.
>
> One of the ideas behind my alf_queue, is that it can be used for
> efficiently distributing object (pointers) between threads.
> 1. because it only transfers the pointers (not touching object), and
> 2. because it enqueue/dequeue multiple objects with a single locked cmpxchg.
> Thus, lower in the message passing cost between threads.
>
>
>> This way, the ~100 ns (or even more if you also consider skb
>> allocations) penalty to bring packet headers do not hurt PPS.
>
> I've studied the allocation cost in great detail, thus let me share my
> numbers, 100 ns is too high:
>
> Total cost of alloc+free for 256 byte objects (on CPU i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz).
> The cycles count should be comparable with other CPUs, but that nanosec
> measurement is affected by the very high clock freq of this CPU.
>
> Kmem_cache fastpath "recycle" case:
>  SLUB => 44 cycles(tsc) 11.205 ns
>  SLAB => 96 cycles(tsc) 24.119 ns.
>
> The problem is that real use-cases in the network stack, almost always
> hit the slowpath in kmem_cache allocators.
>
> Kmem_cache "slowpath" case:
>  SLUB => 117 cycles(tsc) 29.276 ns
>  SLAB => 101 cycles(tsc) 25.342 ns
>
> I've addressed this "slowpath" problem in the SLUB and SLAB allocators,
> by introducing a bulk API, which amortize the needed sync-mechanisms.
>
> Kmem_cache using bulk API:
>  SLUB => 37 cycles(tsc) 9.280 ns
>  SLAB => 20 cycles(tsc) 5.035 ns
>
Hi Jesper,

I am a little confused. I believe the 100ns hit refers specifically
cache miss on packet headers. Memory object allocation seems like
different problem; the latency might depend on cache misses, but it's
not on packet data (which we seem to assume is always a cache miss).
For the cache miss problem on the packet headers I think we really
need to evaluate whether DDIO adequately solves the it (need more
numbers :) ). As I read it, DDIO is enabled by default since Sandy
Bridge-EP and is transparent to both HW and SW. It seems like we
should have seen some sort of measurable benefit by now...

Tom

>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer