> -----Original Message----- > From: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 5:19 PM > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com> > Cc: Amber, Kumar <kumar.am...@intel.com>; d...@openvswitch.org; > i.maxim...@ovn.org; Flavio Leitner <f...@sysclose.org>; Stokes, Ian > <ian.sto...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [v4 02/12] dpif-netdev: Add auto validation function > for > miniflow extract > > > > On 29 Jun 2021, at 13:05, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > Hi Eelco, > > > > Would you describe the actual test being run below? > > > > I'm having a hard time figuring out what the actual datapath packet flow > > is. It > seems strange > > that MFEX optimizations are affected by flow-count, that doesn't really > > logically > make sense. > > Hence, some more understanding on what the test setup is may help. > > > > To remove complexity & noise from the setup: does running a simple > > Phy-to-Phy > test with L2 bridging > > cause any perf degradation? If so, please describe that exact setup and > > I'll try to > reproduce/replicate results here. > > > > I did run some more tests both PVP as well as a physical port loopback, i.e. > same > port in and out (so without the VM). > Here are some results (I did 5 runs and took the average, and mention the RS > deviation for all runs to make sure it not that):
Ah, thanks for checking noisiness of data, indeed that was going to be my next question! > +-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+----- > ---+---------+--------+-----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ > | P (loopback) | | Packet size | | | > | | | | | > | | | | | | > | | Number of flows | 64 | | 128 | > | 256 | | 512 | > | 768 | | 1024 | | 1514 | | > | without vs with patch | 1000 | -81863 | -0.98% | -134888 | > -1.55% | - > 66261 | -0.80% | -110552 | -1.35% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% > | > | RS Deviation | | | 0.09% | | > 0.46% | | 0.09% | | > 0.06% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | > | without vs with patch | 10000 | -58903 | -0.82% | -52742 | > -0.73% | - > 46875 | -0.64% | -49871 | -0.68% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% > | > | RS Deviation | | | 0.24% | | > 0.13% | | 0.13% | | > 0.10% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | > +-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+----- > ---+---------+--------+-----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ Thanks, so I'm reading that as showing 64 bytes negative 1%, 128 byte pkts -2%. Small deltas, but in the wrong direction, thanks for reporting. > I’ll share the google sheet with you directly as it also has the config, and > PVP results. I can't actually access that doc, sorry. Results above are enough to go by for now :) We can investigate if there's any optimizations to be done to improve the scalar DPIF enabling of the miniflow extract func ptr, but I'm not sure there is. If we cannot improve the perf data from above, there is an option to not enable the scalar DPIF with the AVX512 MFEX optimizations. (Logic being if AVX512 is present, running both the DPIF + MFEX makes sense). What do you think? > //Eelco Note I'm out of office tomorrow Friday 2nd July, so expect replies early next week. Regards, -Harry _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
