[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89572ccb-128b-1f63-f9ab-0db64e65a86c@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:34:11 +0300
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
CC: iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/11] net/mlx5e: Single flow order-0 pages for
Striding RQ
Hi Alexei,
On 07/09/2016 8:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:42:22PM +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
>>
>> To improve the memory consumption scheme, we omit the flow that
>> demands and splits high-order pages in Striding RQ, and stay
>> with a single Striding RQ flow that uses order-0 pages.
>>
>> Moving to fragmented memory allows the use of larger MPWQEs,
>> which reduces the number of UMR posts and filler CQEs.
>>
>> Moving to a single flow allows several optimizations that improve
>> performance, especially in production servers where we would
>> anyway fallback to order-0 allocations:
>> - inline functions that were called via function pointers.
>> - improve the UMR post process.
>>
>> This patch alone is expected to give a slight performance reduction.
>> However, the new memory scheme gives the possibility to use a page-cache
>> of a fair size, that doesn't inflate the memory footprint, which will
>> dramatically fix the reduction and even give a huge gain.
>>
>> We ran pktgen single-stream benchmarks, with iptables-raw-drop:
>>
>> Single stride, 64 bytes:
>> * 4,739,057 - baseline
>> * 4,749,550 - this patch
>> no reduction
>>
>> Larger packets, no page cross, 1024 bytes:
>> * 3,982,361 - baseline
>> * 3,845,682 - this patch
>> 3.5% reduction
>>
>> Larger packets, every 3rd packet crosses a page, 1500 bytes:
>> * 3,731,189 - baseline
>> * 3,579,414 - this patch
>> 4% reduction
> imo it's not a realistic use case, but would be good to mention that
> patch 3 brings performance back for this use case anyway.
Exactly, that's what I meant in the previous paragraph (".. will
dramatically fix the reduction and even give a huge gain.")
Regards,
Tariq
Powered by blists - more mailing lists