> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 7:21 PM
> To: Rahul Bhansali <rbhans...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Radu Nicolau
> <radu.nico...@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>; Konstantin
> Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>; Anoob Joseph
> <ano...@marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix IPsec performance
> drop
>
> On 2/9/2024 1:10 PM, Rahul Bhansali wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 4:06 PM
> >> To: Rahul Bhansali <rbhans...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Radu
> >> Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>;
> >> Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>; Anoob Joseph
> >> <ano...@marvell.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix IPsec
> >> performance drop
> >>
> >> On 2/7/2024 6:46 AM, Rahul Bhansali wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:55 PM
> >>>> To: Rahul Bhansali <rbhans...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Radu
> >>>> Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>;
> >>>> Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>; Anoob Joseph
> >>>> <ano...@marvell.com>
> >>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix IPsec
> >>>> performance drop
> >>>>
> >>>> External Email
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --
> >>>> - On 2/6/2024 12:38 PM, Rahul Bhansali wrote:
> >>>>> Single packet free using rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() is dropping the
> >>>>> performance. On cn10k, maximum of ~4% drop observed for IPsec
> >>>>> event mode single SA outbound case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To fix this issue, single packet free will use rte_pktmbuf_free API.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: bd7c063561b3 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: use bulk free")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Bhansali <rbhans...@marvell.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.h | 7 +++----
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.h
> >>>>> b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.h
> >>>>> index 8baab44ee7..ec33a982df 100644
> >>>>> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.h
> >>>>> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.h
> >>>>> @@ -229,11 +229,10 @@ free_reassembly_fail_pkt(struct rte_mbuf
> >>>>> *mb) }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* helper routine to free bulk of packets */ -static inline void
> >>>>> -free_pkts(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t n)
> >>>>> +static __rte_always_inline void
> >>>>> +free_pkts(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], const uint32_t n)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> - rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(mb, n);
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> + n == 1 ? rte_pktmbuf_free(mb[0]) : rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(mb, n);
> >>>>> core_stats_update_drop(n);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Rahul,
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think the 'rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()' API performance can be
> >>>> improved by similar change?
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ferruh,
> >>> Currently 'rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() is not inline. If we make that
> >>> along with
> >> __rte_pktmbuf_free_seg_via_array() both inline then performance can
> >> be improved similar.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ah, so performance improvement is coming from 'rte_pktmbuf_free()'
> >> being inline, OK.
> >>
> >> As you are doing performance testing in that area, can you please
> >> check if '__rte_pktmbuf_free_seg_via_array()' is inlined, as it is
> >> static function I expect it to be inlined. If not, can you please
> >> test with force inlining it (__rte_always_inline)?
> > It was not inline, did check with force inline also and no impact with
> > this, so I
> can make it force inline.
> >
>
> If there is no performance improvement, I think no need to force inline
> '__rte_pktmbuf_free_seg_via_array()'.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> And I wonder if bulk() API may get single mbuf is a common theme,
> >> does it makes sense add a new inline wrapper to library to cover this
> >> case, if it is bringing ~4% improvement, like:
> >> ```
> >> static inline void
> >> rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk_or_one(... **mb, unsigned int n) {
> >> if (n == 1)
> >> return rte_pktmbuf_free(mb[0]);
> >> return rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(mb, n); }
> > Agree, can make this wrapper to cover a case where bulk free API is
> > called but might have single mbuf to get better perf. It can be
> > further optimize " if (n == 1)" with compile time constant check, ```
> > static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk_or_one(struct rte_mbuf **mb,
> > unsigned int n) {
> > if (__builtin_constant_p(n) && (n == 1))
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(mb[0]);
> > else
> > rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(mb, n); } ``` Let me know if it
> > is fine. I'll send v2. And, this will be " __rte_experimental" right ?
> >
>
> Compile time constant check can prevent penalty from additional check, which
> is
> good, and I can see this can work for the examples/ipsec-secgw usecase above,
> which has some hardcoded single mbuf free calls.
>
> But most of the other usecases I think 'n' won't be known in compile time, so
> API
> will be effectively same as free_bulk().
Agree.
>
> If you have it with runtime check, do you still observe any performance
> improvement? If not perhaps we can go only with example code update, without
> new API.
With runtime check, performance improvement is small only in compare to compile
time check. So can continue without this new API.
