[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <774fadf5-6383-f9e0-bbc6-e5862482a7d1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:34:56 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <olteanv@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
<andriin@...com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <weiwan@...gle.com>,
<cong.wang@...edance.com>, <ap420073@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...neuler.org>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
<yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <mzhivich@...mai.com>, <johunt@...mai.com>,
<albcamus@...il.com>, <kehuan.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless
qdisc
On 2021/3/23 14:37, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22.03.21 10:09, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> Currently pfifo_fast has both TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS and TCQ_F_NOLOCK
>> flag set, but queue discipline by-pass does not work for lockless
>> qdisc because skb is always enqueued to qdisc even when the qdisc
>> is empty, see __dev_xmit_skb().
>>
>> This patch calls sch_direct_xmit() to transmit the skb directly
>> to the driver for empty lockless qdisc too, which aviod enqueuing
>> and dequeuing operation. qdisc->empty is set to false whenever a
>> skb is enqueued, see pfifo_fast_enqueue(), and is set to true when
>> skb dequeuing return NULL, see pfifo_fast_dequeue().
>>
>> There is a data race between enqueue/dequeue and qdisc->empty
>> setting, qdisc->empty is only used as a hint, so we need to call
>> sch_may_need_requeuing() to see if the queue is really empty and if
>> there is requeued skb, which has higher priority than the current
>> skb.
>>
>> The performance for ip_forward test increases about 10% with this
>> patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> Hi, Vladimir and Ahmad
>> Please give it a test to see if there is any out of order
>> packet for this patch, which has removed the priv->lock added in
>> RFC v2.
>
> Overnight test (10h, 64 mil frames) didn't see any out-of-order frames
> between 2 FlexCANs on a dual core machine:
>
> Tested-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
>
> No performance measurements taken.
Thanks for the testing.
And I has done the performance measurement.
L3 forward testing improves from 1.09Mpps to 1.21Mpps, still about
10% improvement.
pktgen + dummy netdev:
threads without+this_patch with+this_patch delta
1 2.56Mpps 3.11Mpps +21%
2 3.76Mpps 4.31Mpps +14%
4 5.51Mpps 5.53Mpps +0.3%
8 2.81Mpps 2.72Mpps -3%
16 2.24Mpps 2.22Mpps -0.8%
>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists