[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b319014e-519c-4c2d-8b6d-1632357e66cd@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:39:13 -0800
From: "Daniel Xu" <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To: "Alexander Lobakin" <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: "Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT v2 0/3] Introduce GRO support to cpumap codebase
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:51:43 +0200
>
>> From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:50:42 +0200
>>
>>> From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:47:58 +0200
>>>
>>>>> From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:46:00 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:13:42PM GMT, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>>>>>>> Add GRO support to cpumap codebase moving the cpu_map_entry kthread to a
>>>>>>>> NAPI-kthread pinned on the selected cpu.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes in rfc v2:
>>>>>>>> - get rid of dummy netdev dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lorenzo Bianconi (3):
>>>>>>>> net: Add napi_init_for_gro routine
>>>>>>>> net: add napi_threaded_poll to netdevice.h
>>>>>>>> bpf: cpumap: Add gro support
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 3 +
>>>>>>>> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c | 123 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>>>> net/core/dev.c | 27 ++++++---
>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 2.46.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry about the long delay - finally caught up to everything after
>>>>>>> conferences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I re-ran my synthetic tests (including baseline). v2 is somehow showing
>>>>>>> 2x bigger gains than v1 (~30% vs ~14%) for tcp_stream. Again, the only
>>>>>>> variable I changed is kernel version - steering prog is active for both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Baseline (again)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ./tcp_rr -c -H $TASK_IP -p 50,90,99 -T4 -F8 -l30 ./tcp_stream -c -H $TASK_IP -T8 -F16 -l30
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Transactions Latency P50 (s) Latency P90 (s) Latency P99 (s) Throughput (Mbit/s)
>>>>>>> Run 1 2560252 0.00009087 0.00010495 0.00011647 Run 1 15479.31
>>>>>>> Run 2 2665517 0.00008575 0.00010239 0.00013311 Run 2 15162.48
>>>>>>> Run 3 2755939 0.00008191 0.00010367 0.00012287 Run 3 14709.04
>>>>>>> Run 4 2595680 0.00008575 0.00011263 0.00012671 Run 4 15373.06
>>>>>>> Run 5 2841865 0.00007999 0.00009471 0.00012799 Run 5 15234.91
>>>>>>> Average 2683850.6 0.000084854 0.00010367 0.00012543 Average 15191.76
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cpumap NAPI patches v2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Transactions Latency P50 (s) Latency P90 (s) Latency P99 (s) Throughput (Mbit/s)
>>>>>>> Run 1 2577838 0.00008575 0.00012031 0.00013695 Run 1 19914.56
>>>>>>> Run 2 2729237 0.00007551 0.00013311 0.00017663 Run 2 20140.92
>>>>>>> Run 3 2689442 0.00008319 0.00010495 0.00013311 Run 3 19887.48
>>>>>>> Run 4 2862366 0.00008127 0.00009471 0.00010623 Run 4 19374.49
>>>>>>> Run 5 2700538 0.00008319 0.00010367 0.00012799 Run 5 19784.49
>>>>>>> Average 2711884.2 0.000081782 0.00011135 0.000136182 Average 19820.388
>>>>>>> Delta 1.04% -3.62% 7.41% 8.57% 30.47%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cool, thx for testing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Olek: how do we want to proceed on it? Are you still working on it or do you want me
>>>>>> to send a regular patch for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a small vacation, sorry. I'm starting working on it again today.
>>>>
>>>> ack, no worries. Are you going to rebase the other patches on top of it
>>>> or are you going to try a different approach?
>>>
>>> I'll try the approach without NAPI as Kuba asks and let Daniel test it,
>>> then we'll see.
>>
>> For now, I have the same results without NAPI as with your series, so
>> I'll push it soon and let Daniel test.
>>
>> (I simply decoupled GRO and NAPI and used the former in cpumap, but the
>> kthread logic didn't change)
>>
>>>
>>> BTW I'm curious how he got this boost on v2, from what I see you didn't
>>> change the implementation that much?
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Sorry for the delay. Please test [0].
>
> [0] https://github.com/alobakin/linux/commits/cpumap-old
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
Ack. Will do probably early next week.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists