On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:35 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
> > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:11 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
> >> "Zhang, Yanmin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >>>> From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
> >>>>
> >>>>> On linux-2.6.25-rc1 x86_64 :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xb0
> >>>>> offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb8
> >>>>> offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xbc
> >>>>> offsetof(struct dst_entry, next)=0xc0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it should be optimal... I dont know why tbench prefers __refcnt
> >>>>> being
> >>>>> on 0xc0, since in this case lastuse will be on a different cache line...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Each incoming IP packet will need to change lastuse, __refcnt and
> >>>>> __use,
> >>>>> so keeping them in the same cache line is a win.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect then that even this patch could help tbench, since it avoids
> >>>>> writing lastuse...
> >>>> I think your suspicions are right, and even moreso
> >>>> it helps to keep __refcnt out of the same cache line
> >>>> as input/output/ops which are read-almost-entirely :-
> >>> I think you are right. The issue is these three variables sharing the
> >>> same cache line
> >>> with input/output/ops.
> >>>
> >>>> )
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, but it seems that
> >>>> the write traffic to lastuse and __refcnt are about the
> >>>> same. However if we find that __refcnt gets hit more
> >>>> than lastuse in this workload, it explains the regression.
> >>> I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2
> >>> unsigned long
> >>> pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The
> >>> performance is
> >>> recovered.
> >>>
> >>> How about below patch? Almost all performance is recovered with the new
> >>> patch.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> --- linux-2.6.25-rc1/include/net/dst.h 2008-02-21 14:33:43.000000000
> >>> +0800
> >>> +++ linux-2.6.25-rc1_work/include/net/dst.h 2008-02-21
> >>> 14:36:22.000000000 +0800
> >>> @@ -52,11 +52,10 @@ struct dst_entry
> >>> unsigned short header_len; /* more space at head required
> >>> */
> >>> unsigned short trailer_len; /* space to reserve at tail */
> >>>
> >>> - u32 metrics[RTAX_MAX];
> >>> - struct dst_entry *path;
> >>> -
> >>> - unsigned long rate_last; /* rate limiting for ICMP */
> >>> unsigned int rate_tokens;
> >>> + unsigned long rate_last; /* rate limiting for ICMP */
> >>> +
> >>> + struct dst_entry *path;
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE
> >>> __u32 tclassid;
> >>> @@ -70,10 +69,12 @@ struct dst_entry
> >>> int (*output)(struct sk_buff*);
> >>>
> >>> struct dst_ops *ops;
> >>> -
> >>> - unsigned long lastuse;
> >>> +
> >>> + u32 metrics[RTAX_MAX];
> >>> +
> >>> atomic_t __refcnt; /* client references */
> >>> int __use;
> >>> + unsigned long lastuse;
> >>> union {
> >>> struct dst_entry *next;
> >>> struct rtable *rt_next;
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Well, after this patch, we grow dst_entry by 8 bytes :
> > With my .config, it doesn't grow. Perhaps because of CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE,
> > I don't
> > enable it. I will move tclassid under ops.
> >
> >> sizeof(struct dst_entry)=0xd0
> >> offsetof(struct dst_entry, input)=0x68
> >> offsetof(struct dst_entry, output)=0x70
> >> offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb4
> >> offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xc0
> >> offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xb8
> >> sizeof(struct rtable)=0x140
> >>
> >>
> >> So we dirty two cache lines instead of one, unless your cpu have 128 bytes
> >> cache lines ?
> >>
> >> I am quite suprised that my patch to not change lastuse if already set to
> >> jiffies changes nothing...
> >>
> >> If you have some time, could you also test this (unrelated) patch ?
> >>
> >> We can avoid dirty all the time a cache line of loopback device.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/loopback.c b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> >> index f2a6e71..0a4186a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/loopback.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> >> @@ -150,7 +150,10 @@ static int loopback_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
> >> net_device *dev)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> #endif
> >> - dev->last_rx = jiffies;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> + if (dev->last_rx != jiffies)
> >> +#endif
> >> + dev->last_rx = jiffies;
> >>
> >> /* it's OK to use per_cpu_ptr() because BHs are off */
> >> pcpu_lstats = netdev_priv(dev);
> >>
> > Although I didn't test it, I don't think it's ok. The key is __refcnt
> > shares the same
> > cache line with ops/input/output.
> >
>
> Note it was unrelated to struct dst, but dirtying of one cache line of
> 'loopback netdevice'
>
> I tested it, and tbench result was better with this patch : 890 MB/s instead
> of 870 MB/s on a bi dual core machine.
I tested your new patch and it doesn't help tbench.
On my 8-core stoakley machine, the regression is only 5%, but it's 30% on
16-core tigerton.
It looks like the scalability is poor.
>
>
> I was curious of the potential gain on your 16 cores (4x4) machine.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
