[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181207164435.18f8ffed@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:44:35 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, tariqt@...lanox.com,
ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, toke@...e.dk,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] avoid indirect calls for DMA direct mappings
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 02:21:42 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:24:38PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 06/12/2018 20:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 06:54:17PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>> I'm pretty sure we used to assign dummy_dma_ops explicitly to devices at
> >>> the point we detected the ACPI properties are wrong - that shouldn't be too
> >>> much of a headache to go back to.
> >>
> >> Ok. I've cooked up a patch to use NULL as the go direct marker.
> >> This cleans up a few things nicely, but also means we now need to
> >> do the bypass scheme for all ops, not just the fast path. But we
> >> probably should just move the slow path ops out of line anyway,
> >> so I'm not worried about it. This has survived some very basic
> >> testing on x86, and really needs to be cleaned up and split into
> >> multiple patches..
> >
> > I've also just finished hacking something up to keep the arm64 status quo -
> > I'll need to actually test it tomorrow, but the overall diff looks like the
> > below.
>
> Nice. I created a branch that picked up your bits and also the ideas
> from Linus, and the result looks reall nice. I'll still need a signoff
> for your bits, though.
>
> Jesper, can you give this a spin if it changes the number even further?
>
> git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git dma-direct-calls.2
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/dma-direct-calls.2
I'll test it soon...
I looked at my perf stat recording on my existing tests[1] and there
seems to be significantly more I-cache usage.
Copy-paste from my summary[1]:
[1] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/areas/dma/dma01_test_hellwig_direct_dma.org#summary-of-results
* Summary of results
Using XDP_REDIRECT between drivers RX ixgbe(10G) redirect TX i40e(40G),
via BPF devmap (used samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_map) . (Note choose
higher TX link-speed to assure that we don't to have a TX bottleneck).
The baseline-kernel is at commit https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/ef78e5ec9214,
which is commit just before Hellwigs changes in this tree.
Performance numbers in packets/sec (XDP_REDIRECT ixgbe -> i40e):
- 11913154 (11,913,154) pps - baseline compiled without retpoline
- 7438283 (7,438,283) pps - regression due to CONFIG_RETPOLINE
- 9610088 (9,610,088) pps - mitigation via Hellwig dma-direct-calls
>From the inst per cycle, it is clear that retpolines are stalling the CPU
pipeline:
| pps | insn per cycle |
|------------+----------------|
| 11,913,154 | 2.39 |
| 7,438,283 | 1.54 |
| 9,610,088 | 2.04 |
Strangely the Instruction-Cache is also under heavier pressure:
| pps | l2_rqsts.all_code_rd | l2_rqsts.code_rd_hit | l2_rqsts.code_rd_miss |
|------------+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
| 11,913,154 | 874,547 | 742,335 | 132,198 |
| 7,438,283 | 649,513 | 547,581 | 101,945 |
| 9,610,088 | 2,568,064 | 2,001,369 | 566,683 |
| | | | |
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists