Re: README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more


Jesper Dangaard Brouer
 

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:03:09 +0300
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev
<iovisor-dev@...> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

I'm sorry but I have a problem with this patch!
Looking at this patch, I want to bring up a fundamental architectural
concern with the development direction of XDP transmit.


What you are trying to implement, with delaying the doorbell, is
basically TX bulking for TX_XDP.

Why not implement a TX bulking interface directly instead?!?

Yes, the tailptr/doorbell is the most costly operation, but why not
also take advantage of the benefits of bulking for other parts of the
code? (benefit is smaller, by every cycles counts in this area)

This hole XDP exercise is about avoiding having a transaction cost per
packet, that reads "bulking" or "bundling" of packets, where possible.

Lets do bundling/bulking from the start!
Jesper, what we did here is also bulking, instead of bulking in a
temporary list in the driver we list the packets in the HW and once
done we transmit all at once via the xdp_doorbell indication.

I agree with you that we can take advantage and improve the icache by
bulking first in software and then queue all at once in the hw then
ring one doorbell.

but I also agree with Alexei that this will introduce an extra
pointer/list handling in the driver and we need to do the comparison
between both approaches before we decide which is better.
I welcome implementing both approaches and benchmarking them against
each-other, I'll gladly dedicate time for this!

I'm reacting so loudly, because this is a mental model switch, that
need to be applied to the full drivers RX path. Also for normal stack
delivery of SKBs. As both Edward Cree[1] and I[2] have demonstrated,
there is between 10%-25% perf gain here.

The key point is stop seeing the lowest driver RX as something that
works on a per packet basis. It might be easier to view this as a kind
of vector processing. This is about having a vector of packets, where
we apply some action/operation.

This is about using the CPU more efficiently, getting it to do more
instructions per cycle. The next level of optimization (for >= Sandy
Bridge CPUs) is to make these vector processing stages small enough to fit
into the CPUs decoded-I-cache section.


It might also be important to mention, that for netstack delivery, I
don't imagine bulking 64 packets. Instead, I imagine doing 8-16
packets. Why, because the NIC-HW runs independently and have the
opportunity to deliver more frames in the RX ring queue, while the
stack "slow" processed packets. You can view this as "bulking" from
the RX ring queue, with a "look-back" before exiting the NAPI poll loop.


this must be marked as future work and not have this from the start.
We both know that statement is BS, and the other approach will never be
implemented once this patch is accepted upstream.


mlx4 already does bulking and this proposed mlx5 set of patches
does bulking as well.
I'm reacting exactly because mlx4 is also doing "bulking" in the wrong
way IMHO. And now mlx5 is building on the same principle. That is why
I'm yelling STOP.


The reason behind the xmit_more API is that we could not change the
API of all the drivers. And we found that calling an explicit NDO
flush came at a cost (only approx 7 ns IIRC), but it still a cost that
would hit the common single packet use-case.

It should be really easy to build a bundle of packets that need XDP_TX
action, especially given you only have a single destination "port".
And then you XDP_TX send this bundle before mlx5_cqwq_update_db_record.

[1] http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/04/19/89
[2] http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/01/15/51

--
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

Join iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org to automatically receive all group messages.