[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZbEqu68J3f9W8nIM@yury-ThinkPad>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:20:27 -0800
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Souradeep Chakrabarti <schakrabarti@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
decui@...rosoft.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, longli@...rosoft.com,
leon@...nel.org, cai.huoqing@...ux.dev, ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com,
vkuznets@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
schakrabarti@...rosoft.com, paulros@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V2 net-next] net: mana: Assigning IRQ affinity on HT
cores
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:00:59AM -0800, Souradeep Chakrabarti wrote:
> Existing MANA design assigns IRQ to every CPU, including sibling
> hyper-threads. This may cause multiple IRQs to be active simultaneously
> in the same core and may reduce the network performance.
>
> Improve the performance by assigning IRQ to non sibling CPUs in local
> NUMA node. The performance improvement we are getting using ntttcp with
> following patch is around 15 percent against existing design and
> approximately 11 percent, when trying to assign one IRQ in each core
> across NUMA nodes, if enough cores are present.
> The change will improve the performance for the system
> with high number of CPU, where number of CPUs in a node is more than
> 64 CPUs. Nodes with 64 CPUs or less than 64 CPUs will not be affected
> by this change.
>
> The performance study was done using ntttcp tool in Azure.
> The node had 2 nodes with 32 cores each, total 128 vCPU and number of channels
> were 32 for 32 RX rings.
>
> The below table shows a comparison between existing design and new
> design:
>
> IRQ node-num core-num CPU performance(%)
> 1 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | 0-1 0
> 2 0 | 0 0 | 1 1 | 2-3 3
> 3 0 | 0 1 | 2 2 | 4-5 10
> 4 0 | 0 1 | 3 3 | 6-7 15
> 5 0 | 0 2 | 4 4 | 8-9 15
> ---
> ---
> 25 0 | 0 12| 24 24| 48-49 12
> ---
> 32 0 | 0 15| 31 31| 62-63 12
> 33 0 | 0 16| 0 32| 0-1 10
> ---
> 64 0 | 0 31| 31 63| 62-63 0
Did that omitted lines mean 5-24 : 15%, 25-31 : 12% and 33-63 : 10%?
Or that means that you didn't test those?
Would be nice to have full coverage...
Thanks,
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists