Hi Olivier,
On 23/5/2016 1:55 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Please find some comments below.
>
> On 05/19/2016 04:48 PM, David Hunt wrote:
>> This is a mempool handler that is useful for pipelining apps, where
>> the mempool cache doesn't really work - example, where we have one
>> core doing rx (and alloc), and another core doing Tx (and return). In
>> such a case, the mempool ring simply cycles through all the mbufs,
>> resulting in a LLC miss on every mbuf allocated when the number of
>> mbufs is large. A stack recycles buffers more effectively in this
>> case.
>>
>> v2: cleanup based on mailing list comments. Mainly removal of
>> unnecessary casts and comments.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com>
>> ---
>> lib/librte_mempool/Makefile | 1 +
>> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c | 145
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/Makefile b/lib/librte_mempool/Makefile
>> index f19366e..5aa9ef8 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/Makefile
>> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/Makefile
>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ LIBABIVER := 2
>> SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL) += rte_mempool.c
>> SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL) += rte_mempool_handler.c
>> SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL) += rte_mempool_default.c
>> +SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL) += rte_mempool_stack.c
>> # install includes
>> SYMLINK-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL)-include := rte_mempool.h
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c
>> b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..6e25028
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
>> +/*-
>> + * BSD LICENSE
>> + *
>> + * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> + * All rights reserved.
> Should be 2016?
Yup, will change.
>> ...
>> +
>> +static void *
>> +common_stack_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp)
>> +{
>> + struct rte_mempool_common_stack *s;
>> + unsigned n = mp->size;
>> + int size = sizeof(*s) + (n+16)*sizeof(void *);
>> +
>> + /* Allocate our local memory structure */
>> + s = rte_zmalloc_socket("common-stack",
> "mempool-stack" ?
Yes. Also, I thing the names of the function should be changed from
common_stack_x to simply stack_x. The "common_" does not add anything.
>> + size,
>> + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
>> + mp->socket_id);
>> + if (s == NULL) {
>> + RTE_LOG(ERR, MEMPOOL, "Cannot allocate stack!\n");
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rte_spinlock_init(&s->sl);
>> +
>> + s->size = n;
>> + mp->pool = s;
>> + rte_mempool_set_handler(mp, "stack");
> rte_mempool_set_handler() is a user function, it should be called here
Sure, removed.
>> +
>> + return s;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int common_stack_put(void *p, void * const *obj_table,
>> + unsigned n)
>> +{
>> + struct rte_mempool_common_stack *s = p;
>> + void **cache_objs;
>> + unsigned index;
>> +
>> + rte_spinlock_lock(&s->sl);
>> + cache_objs = &s->objs[s->len];
>> +
>> + /* Is there sufficient space in the stack ? */
>> + if ((s->len + n) > s->size) {
>> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&s->sl);
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> + }
> The usual return value for a failing put() is ENOBUFS (see in rte_ring).
Done.
> After reading it, I realize that it's nearly exactly the same code than
> in "app/test: test external mempool handler".
> http://patchwork.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12896/
>
> We should drop one of them. If this stack handler is really useful for
> a performance use-case, it could go in librte_mempool. At the first
> read, the code looks like a demo example : it uses a simple spinlock for
> concurrent accesses to the common pool. Maybe the mempool cache hides
> this cost, in this case we could also consider removing the use of the
> rte_ring.
Unlike the code in the test app, the stack handler does not use a ring.
This is for the
case where applications do a lot of core-to-core transfers of mbufs. The
test app was
simply to demonstrate a simple example of a malloc mempool handler. This
patch adds
a new lifo handler for general use.
Using the mempool_perf_autotest, I see a 30% increase in throughput when
local cache is enabled/used. However, there is up to a 50% degradation
when local cache
is NOT used, so it's not usable in all situations. However, with a 30%
gain for the cache
use-case, I think it's worth having in there as an option for people to
try if the use-case suits.
> Do you have some some performance numbers? Do you know if it scales
> with the number of cores?
30% gain when local cache is used. And these numbers scale up with the
number of cores on my test machine. It may be better for other use cases.
> If we can identify the conditions where this mempool handler
> overperforms the default handler, it would be valuable to have them
> in the documentation.
>
I could certainly add this to the docs, and mention the recommendation to
use local cache.
Regards,
Dave.
