[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive function

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:30 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive function
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/10/15 16:43, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:33 AM
> >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive function
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15/10/15 00:23, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:11 PM
> >>>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive function
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/09/15 00:19, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 7:29 PM
> >>>>>> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive function
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/09/15 07:41, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 3:15 PM
> >>>>>>>> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD receive
> >>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 13:57, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: Zoltan Kiss [mailto:zoltan.kiss at linaro.org]
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 1:26 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: prefetch packet headers in vector PMD
> >>>>>>>>>> receive function
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I just realized I've missed the "[PATCH]" tag from the subject. Did
> >>>>>>>>>> anyone had time to review this?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Zoltan,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the big thing that concerns me with this is the addition of new
> >>>>>>>>> instructions for each packet in the fast path. Ideally, this
> >>>>>>>>> prefetching would be better handled in the application itself, as for
> >>>>>>>>> some apps, e.g. those using pipelining, the core doing the RX from the
> >>>>>>>>> NIC may not touch the packet data at all, and the prefetches will
> >>>>>>>> instead cause a performance slowdown.
> >>>>>>>>> Is it possible to get the same performance increase - or something
> >>>>>>>>> close to it - by making changes in OVS?
> >>>>>>>> OVS already does a prefetch when it's processing the previous packet, but
> >>>>>>>> apparently it's not early enough. At least for my test scenario, where I'm
> >>>>>>>> forwarding UDP packets with the least possible overhead. I guess in tests
> >>>>>>>> where OVS does more complex processing it should be fine.
> >>>>>>>> I'll try to move the prefetch earlier in OVS codebase, but I'm not sure if
> >>>>>>>> it'll help.
> >>>>>>> I would suggest trying to prefetch more than one packet ahead. Prefetching 4 or
> >>>>>>> 8 ahead might work better, depending on the processing being done.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've moved the prefetch earlier, and it seems to work:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/519017/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However it raises the question: should we remove header prefetch from
> >>>>>> all the other drivers, and the CONFIG_RTE_PMD_PACKET_PREFETCH option?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My vote would be for that.
> >>>>> Konstantin
> >>>>
> >>>> After some further thinking I would rather support the
> >>>> rte_packet_prefetch() macro (prefetch the header in the driver, and
> >>>> configure it through CONFIG_RTE_PMD_PACKET_PREFETCH)
> >>>>
> >>>> - the prefetch can happen earlier, so if an application needs the header
> >>>> right away, this is the fastest
> >>>> - if the application doesn't need header prefetch, it can turn it off
> >>>> compile time. Same as if we wouldn't have this option.
> >>>> - if the application has mixed needs (sometimes it needs the header
> >>>> right away, sometimes it doesn't), it can turn it off and do what it
> >>>> needs. Same as if we wouldn't have this option.
> >>>>
> >>>> A harder decision would be whether it should be turned on or off by
> >>>> default. Currently it's on, and half of the receive functions don't use it.
> >>>
> >>> Yep,  it is sort of a mess right now.
> >>> Another question if we'd like to keep it and standardise it:
> >>> at what moment to prefetch: as soon as we realize that HW is done with that buffer,
> >>> or as late inside rx_burst() as possible?
> >>> I suppose there is no clear answer for that.
> >> I think if the application needs the driver start the prefetching, it
> >> does it because it's already too late when rte_eth_rx_burst() returns.
> >> So I think it's best to do it as soon as we learn that the HW is done.
> >
> > Probably, but it might be situations when it would be more plausible to do it later too.
> Could you elaborate?
> If the application wants prefetch to start earlier than could be done by
> itself (right after rte_eth_rx_burst() returns), earlier is better. So
> it will have the best chances to have the data in cache.
> If it would need the data later, then it could do the prefetch by itself.
> 
> > Again it might depend on particular HW and your memory access pattern.
> >
> >>
> >>> That's why my thought was to just get rid of it.
> >>> Though if it would be implemented in some standardized way and disabled by default -
> >>> that's probably ok too.
> >>> BTW, couldn't that be implemented just via rte_ethdev rx callbacks mechanism?
> >>> Then we can have the code one place and don't need compile option at all -
> >>> could be ebabled/disabled dynamically on a per nic basis.
> >>> Or would it be too high overhead for that?
> >>
> >> I think if we go that way, it's better to pass an option to
> >> rte_eth_rx_burst() and tell if you want the header prefetched by the
> >> driver. That would be the most flexible.
> >
> > That would mean ABI breakage for rx_burst()...
> > Probably then better a new parameter in rx_conf or something.
> > Though it still means that each PMD has to implement it on its own.
> That would be the case in any way, as we are are talking about
> prefetching in the receive function.
> 
> > And again there might be PMDs that would just ignore that parameter.
> If the PMD has a good reason to do that (e.g. prefetch has undesirable
> effects), I think it's fine.
> 
> > While for callback it would be all in one and known place.
> Who and when would call that callback? If the application after
> rte_eth_rx_burst() returned, it wouldn't have too much use, it could
> just call prefetch by itself.

I am talking about the callbacks called by rx_burst() itself:

static inline uint16_t
rte_eth_rx_burst(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id,
                 struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, const uint16_t nb_pkts)
{
        struct rte_eth_dev *dev;

        dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];

        int16_t nb_rx = (*dev->rx_pkt_burst)(dev->data->rx_queues[queue_id],
                        rx_pkts, nb_pkts);

#ifdef RTE_ETHDEV_RXTX_CALLBACKS
        struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback *cb = dev->post_rx_burst_cbs[queue_id];

        if (unlikely(cb != NULL)) {
                do {
                        nb_rx = cb->fn.rx(port_id, queue_id, rx_pkts, nb_rx,
                                                nb_pkts, cb->param);
                        cb = cb->next;
                } while (cb != NULL);
#endif

        return nb_rx;
}

Konstantin

> 
> > But again, I didn't measure it, so not sure what will be an impact of the callback itself.
> > Might be it not worth it.
> > Konstantin
> >
> >>
> >>> Konstantin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Bruce
> >>>>>