On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:40 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
> > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 12:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, "Zhang, Yanmin" said:
> >>
> >>> 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]>
> >> Could you add a comment someplace that says "refcnt wants to be on a 
> >> different
> >> cache line from input/output/ops or performance tanks badly", to warn some
> >> future kernel hacker who starts adding new fields to the structure?
> > Ok. Below is the new patch.
> > 
> > 1) Move tclassid under ops in case CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE=y. So 
> > sizeof(dst_entry)=200
> > no matter if CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE=y/n. I tested many patches on my 16-core 
> > tigerton by
> > moving tclassid to different place. It looks like tclassid could also have 
> > impact on
> > performance.
> > If moving tclassid before metrics, or just don't move tclassid, the 
> > performance isn't
> > good. So I move it behind metrics.
> > 
> > 2) Add comments before __refcnt.
> > 
> > If CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE=y, the result with below patch is about 18% better 
> > than
> > the one without the patch.
> > 
> > If CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE=n, the result with below patch is about 30% better 
> > than
> > the one without the 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 2008-02-22 12:52:19.000000000 
> > +0800
> > @@ -52,15 +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 */
> >  
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE
> > -   __u32                   tclassid;
> > -#endif
> > +   struct dst_entry        *path;
> >  
> >     struct neighbour        *neighbour;
> >     struct hh_cache         *hh;
> > @@ -70,10 +65,20 @@ struct dst_entry
> >     int                     (*output)(struct sk_buff*);
> >  
> >     struct  dst_ops         *ops;
> > -           
> > -   unsigned long           lastuse;
> > +
> > +   u32                     metrics[RTAX_MAX];
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE
> > +   __u32                   tclassid;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +   /*
> > +    * __refcnt wants to be on a different cache line from
> > +    * input/output/ops or performance tanks badly
> > +    */
> >     atomic_t                __refcnt;       /* client references    */
> >     int                     __use;
> > +   unsigned long           lastuse;
> >     union {
> >             struct dst_entry *next;
> >             struct rtable    *rt_next;
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> I prefer this patch, but unfortunatly your perf numbers are for 64 bits 
> kernels.
> 
> Could you please test now with 32 bits one ?
I tested it with 32bit 2.6.25-rc1 on 8-core stoakley. The result almost has no 
difference
between pure kernel and patched kernel.

New update: On 8-core stoakley, the regression becomes 2~3% with kernel 
2.6.25-rc2. On
tigerton, the regression is still 30% with 2.6.25-rc2. On Tulsa( 8 
cores+hyperthreading),
the regression is still 4% with 2.6.25-rc2.

With my patch, on tigerton, almost all regression disappears. On tulsa, only 
about 2%
regression disappears.

So this issue is triggerred with multiple-cpu. Perhaps process scheduler is 
another
factor causing the issue to happen, but it's very hard to change scheduler.


Eric,

I tested your new patch in function loopback_xmit. It has no improvement, while 
it doesn't
introduce new issues. As you tested it on dual-core machine and got 
improvement, how about
merging your patch with mine?

-yanmin


--
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

Reply via email to