[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160125231016.4f0d2cd5@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:10:16 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <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>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Bypass at packet-page level (Was: Optimizing instruction-cache,
more packets at each stage)
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:50:16 -0800 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> On 16-01-25 09:09 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
[...]
> >>
> >> There are two ideas, getting mixed up here. (1) bundling from the
> >> RX-ring, (2) allowing to pick up the "packet-page" directly.
> >>
> >> Bundling (1) is something that seems natural, and which help us
> >> amortize the cost between layers (and utilizes icache better). Lets
> >> keep that in another thread.
> >>
> >> This (2) direct forward of "packet-pages" is a fairly extreme idea,
> >> BUT it have the potential of being an new integration point for
> >> "selective" bypass-solutions and bringing RAW/af_packet (RX) up-to
> >> speed with bypass-solutions.
>
[...]
>
> Jesper, at least for you (2) case what are we missing with the
> bifurcated/queue splitting work? Are you really after systems
> without SR-IOV support or are you trying to get this on the order
> of queues instead of VFs.
I'm not saying something is missing for bifurcated/queue splitting work.
I'm not trying to work-around SR-IOV.
This an extreme idea, which I got while looking at the lowest RX layer.
Before working any further on this idea/path, I need/want to evaluate
if it makes sense from a performance point of view. I need to evaluate
if "pulling" out these "packet-pages" is fast enough to compete with
DPDK/netmap. Else it makes no sense to work on this path.
As a first step to evaluate this lowest RX layer, I'm simply hacking
the drivers (ixgbe and mlx5) to drop/discard packets within-the-driver.
For now, simply replacing napi_gro_receive() with dev_kfree_skb(), and
measuring the "RX-drop" performance.
Next step was to avoid the skb alloc+free calls, but doing so is more
complicated that I first anticipated, as the SKB is tied in fairly
heavily. Thus, right now I'm instead hooking in my bulk alloc+free
API, as that will remove/mitigate most of the overhead of the
kmem_cache/slab-allocators.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists