Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1402831

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring

From Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring
Date 2016-05-18 11:30 +0200
Message-ID <rA5XH-aM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <rzlBv-4a7-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rzlLb-4sk-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rzC9l-6mz-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <rA4RX-7UR-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rA51E-7Zz-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:21:59 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:16:31AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:38:37 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > >> And if tx_queue_length is not power of 2,
> > > >> we probably need modulus to calculate the capacity.    
> > > > Is that really that important for speed?    
> > > 
> > > Not sure, I can test.  
> > 
> > In my experience, yes, adding a modulus does affect performance.  
> 
> How about simple
> 	if (unlikely(++idx > size))
> 		idx = 0;

So, you are exchanging an AND-operation with a mask, for a
branch-operation.  If the branch predictor is good enough in the CPU
and code-"size" use-case, then I could be just as fast.

I've actually played with a lot of different approaches:
 https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/include/linux/alf_queue_helpers.h

I cannot remember the exact results. I do remember micro benchmarking
showed good results with the advanced "unroll" approach, but IPv4
forwarding, where I know I-cache is getting evicted, showed best
results with the more simpler implementations.


> > > 
> > > Right, this sounds a good solution.  
> > 
> > Good idea.  
> 
> I'm not that sure - it's clearly wasting memory.

Rounding up to power of two.  In this case I don't think the memory
wast is too high.  As we are talking about max 16 bytes elements.

I am concerned about memory in another way. We need to keep these
arrays/rings small, due to data cache usage.  A 4096 ring queue is bad
because e.g. 16*4096=65536 bytes, and typical L1 cache is 32K-64K. As
this is a circular buffer, we walk over this memory all the time, thus
evicting the L1 cache.

-- 
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

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-16 04:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 06:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-16 10:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 10:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 10:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 12:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-05-18 14:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 18:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 18:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 18:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> - 2016-05-19 14:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-16 06:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-16 10:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-16 10:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-17 03:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 10:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 10:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 11:30 +0200
                Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 12:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 12:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-18 13:00 +0200

csiph-web