[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance measurement
Jozwiak, TomaszX
tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com
Tue Nov 6 10:05:56 CET 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma at cavium.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:16 AM
> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Trahe,
> Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance
> measurement
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
> >Sent: 06 November 2018 13:34
> >To: Verma, Shally <Shally.Verma at cavium.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Trahe,
> Fiona
> ><fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com
> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add performance
> >measurement
> >
> >External Email
> >
> >Hi Shally,
> >
> >Please see my comment inline.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma at cavium.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 9:34 AM
> >> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> >> Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com; De Lara
> >> Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> >> Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add
> >> performance measurement
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
> >> >Sent: 02 November 2018 15:29
> >> >To: dev at dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>;
> >> >akhil.goyal at nxp.com; Verma, Shally <Shally.Verma at cavium.com>; De
> >> >Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> >> >Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
> >> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add
> >> >performance measurement
> >> >
> >> >External Email
> >> >
> >> >Hi Shally,
> >> >
> >> >Sorry for delay - I was on sick leave.
> >> >We had some issues with dynamic compression test so I block this
> >> >test in V2. May be there's too late to add this into this release
> >> >but we've decided
> >> to send this V2 to DPDK.
> >> >
> >> >My comment inline (not all have answer so far, still working on
> >> >that)
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma at cavium.com]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:16 PM
> >> >> To: Jozwiak, TomaszX <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> >> >> Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com; De Lara
> >> >> Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> >> >> Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
> >> >> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add
> >> >> performance measurement
> >> >>
> >> >> HI TomaszX
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry for delay in response. Comments inline.
> >> >>
> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >> >From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Tomasz Jozwiak
> >> >> >Sent: 01 October 2018 18:57
> >> >> >To: dev at dpdk.org; fiona.trahe at intel.com;
> >> >> >tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com; akhil.goyal at nxp.com;
> >> >> >pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com
> >> >> >Cc: De at dpdk.org; Lara at dpdk.org; Guarch at dpdk.org
> >> >> >Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/compress-perf: add
> >> >> >performance measurement
> >> >> >
> >> >> >External Email
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Added performance measurement part into compression perf. test.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Signed-off-by: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> >> >> ><pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> >> >> >Signed-off-by: Tomasz Jozwiak <tomaszx.jozwiak at intel.com>
> >> >> >---
> >> >> > app/test-compress-perf/main.c | 844
> >> >> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> > 1 file changed, 844 insertions(+)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >diff --git a/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
> >> >> >b/app/test-compress-perf/main.c index f52b98d..093dfaf 100644
> >> >> >--- a/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
> >> >> >+++ b/app/test-compress-perf/main.c
> >> >> >@@ -5,13 +5,721 @@
> >> >> > #include <rte_malloc.h>
> >> >> > #include <rte_eal.h>
> >> >> > #include <rte_log.h>
> >> >> >+#include <rte_cycles.h>
> >> >> > #include <rte_compressdev.h>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > #include "comp_perf_options.h"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >+#define NUM_MAX_XFORMS 16
> >> >> >+#define NUM_MAX_INFLIGHT_OPS 512 #define EXPANSE_RATIO
> 1.05
> >> >> >+#define MIN_ISAL_SIZE 8
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+#define DIV_CEIL(a, b) ((a) / (b) + ((a) % (b) != 0))
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+static int
> >> >> >+param_range_check(uint16_t size, const struct
> >> >> >+rte_param_log2_range
> >> >> >+*range) {
> >> >> >+ unsigned int next_size;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Check lower/upper bounds */
> >> >> >+ if (size < range->min)
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (size > range->max)
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* If range is actually only one value, size is correct */
> >> >> >+ if (range->increment == 0)
> >> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Check if value is one of the supported sizes */
> >> >> >+ for (next_size = range->min; next_size <= range->max;
> >> >> >+ next_size += range->increment)
> >> >> >+ if (size == next_size)
> >> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+}
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+static int
> >> >> >+comp_perf_check_capabilities(struct comp_test_data *test_data) {
> >> >> >+ const struct rte_compressdev_capabilities *cap;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ cap = rte_compressdev_capability_get(test_data->cdev_id,
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE);
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (cap == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Compress device does not support DEFLATE\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ uint64_t comp_flags = cap->comp_feature_flags;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Huffman enconding */
> >> >> >+ if (test_data->huffman_enc == RTE_COMP_HUFFMAN_FIXED
> &&
> >> >> >+ (comp_flags & RTE_COMP_FF_HUFFMAN_FIXED) == 0) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Compress device does not supported Fixed
> Huffman\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (test_data->huffman_enc ==
> RTE_COMP_HUFFMAN_DYNAMIC
> >> &&
> >> >> >+ (comp_flags &
> >> >> >+ RTE_COMP_FF_HUFFMAN_DYNAMIC) == 0)
> >> {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Compress device does not supported
> >> >> >+ Dynamic
> >> Huffman\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Window size */
> >> >> >+ if (test_data->window_sz != -1) {
> >> >> >+ if (param_range_check(test_data->window_sz,
> >> >> >+ &cap->window_size)
> >> >> What if cap->window_size is 0 i.e. implementation default?
> >> >
> >> >TJ: You probably mean cap->window_size.increment = 0 (because
> >> >cap->window_size is a structure). In that case we check if
> >> >test_data->window_sz >=min and test_data->window_sz <= max only,
> >> because increment = 0 means (base on compression API) we have only
> >> one value of windows_size (no range is supported).
> >> But PMD can set min and max too 0 for such case.
> >
> >TJ: I can't see any issue in that case too. Maybe I don't understand what you
> mean but the logic is as follow:
> >1) if you pass '--window-sz ...' param. into command line your
> >intention is to force that value of window size during test. We check is this
> value is allow (by param_range_check() function).
> >2) if you plan to use default value - just don't pass '--window-sz'
> >param. in command line at all. In that case we get windows size from
> >window_size.max field, so if window_size.min= window_size.max=0
> test_data->window_sz will be zero, as well.
> >If you mean that behavior is not good - I will be grateful for other
> suggestions.
>
> This is fine. but I am thinking of 3rd case here:
> c) user pass window sz but PMD window_sz.min = max = 0, then user
> requested windowsz is not applicable right?!
In that case - true. There'll be fail :
"Compress device does not support this window size\n");
So what is your proposal for that case?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ....
> >>
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (fread(data, data_to_read, 1, f) != 1) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Input file could not be read\n");
> >> >> >+ goto err;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ if (fseek(f, 0, SEEK_SET) != 0) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Size of input could not be calculated\n");
> >> >> >+ goto err;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ remaining_data -= data_to_read;
> >> >> >+ data += data_to_read;
> >> >> It looks like it will run 2nd time only if input file size < input
> >> >> data size in which case it will just keep filling input buffer
> >> >> with repeated
> >> data.
> >> >> Is that the intention here?
> >> >
> >> >TJ: Yes exactly. If test_data->input_data_sz is bigger than
> >> >actual_file_sz then we fill the buffer with repeated data from file
> >> >to fill
> >> whole buffer.
> >> I mentioned in one of the earlier reply, wont that then influence the
> >> compression behaviour and o/p? my suggestion was to work on actual
> >> user provided input to take perf to get actual perf for given content.
> >
> >TJ: You right, but this solution is flexible. You can pass '
> >--extended-input-sz" or not, so you can use original input data or extend it
> if you want.
> Ok. but still not sure if it's really needed. Might be practically most of the time
> it wont be exercised. No hard opinion on this though.
>
> Thanks
> Shally
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >> >+ if (data_addr == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not
> >> >> >+ append data\n");
> >> >> Since a new buffer per segment is allocated, so is it possible for
> >> >> append to fail? think, this check is redundant here.
> >> >
> >> >TJ: Yes, you're right, it should never fail. But I think it's good
> >> >coding practice
> >> to add the check just in case.
> >> >
> >> Unless it is called in data path which might cost perf a bit.
> >
> >TJ: prepare_bufs() is out of perf measurement, so shouldn't impact to
> >measurements. The performance measurement is inside
> >main_loop() only.
> >
> >
> >Br, Tomek
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Shally
> >>
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ rte_memcpy(data_addr, input_data_ptr, data_sz);
> >> >> >+ input_data_ptr += data_sz;
> >> >> >+ remaining_data -= data_sz;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (rte_pktmbuf_chain(test_data->decomp_bufs[i],
> >> >> >+ next_seg) < 0) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not chain mbufs\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ segs_per_mbuf++;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Allocate data in output mbuf */
> >> >> >+ test_data->comp_bufs[i] =
> >> >> >+ rte_pktmbuf_alloc(test_data->comp_buf_pool);
> >> >> >+ if (test_data->comp_bufs[i] == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not allocate mbuf\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ data_addr = (uint8_t *) rte_pktmbuf_append(
> >> >> >+ test_data->comp_bufs[i],
> >> >> >+ test_data->seg_sz);
> >> >> >+ if (data_addr == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not append data\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Chain mbufs if needed for output mbufs */
> >> >> >+ for (j = 1; j < segs_per_mbuf; j++) {
> >> >> >+ struct rte_mbuf *next_seg =
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ rte_pktmbuf_alloc(test_data->comp_buf_pool);
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (next_seg == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Could not allocate mbuf\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ data_addr = (uint8_t *)rte_pktmbuf_append(next_seg,
> >> >> >+ test_data->seg_sz);
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (data_addr == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not append data\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (rte_pktmbuf_chain(test_data->comp_bufs[i],
> >> >> >+ next_seg) < 0) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Could not chain mbufs\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >> >+}
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+static void
> >> >> >+free_bufs(struct comp_test_data *test_data) {
> >> >> >+ uint32_t i;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ for (i = 0; i < test_data->total_bufs; i++) {
> >> >> >+ rte_pktmbuf_free(test_data->comp_bufs[i]);
> >> >> >+ rte_pktmbuf_free(test_data->decomp_bufs[i]);
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ rte_free(test_data->comp_bufs);
> >> >> >+ rte_free(test_data->decomp_bufs); }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+static int
> >> >> >+main_loop(struct comp_test_data *test_data, uint8_t level,
> >> >> >+ enum rte_comp_xform_type type,
> >> >> >+ uint8_t *output_data_ptr,
> >> >> >+ size_t *output_data_sz,
> >> >> >+ unsigned int benchmarking) {
> >> >> >+ uint8_t dev_id = test_data->cdev_id;
> >> >> >+ uint32_t i, iter, num_iter;
> >> >> >+ struct rte_comp_op **ops, **deq_ops;
> >> >> >+ void *priv_xform = NULL;
> >> >> >+ struct rte_comp_xform xform;
> >> >> >+ size_t output_size = 0;
> >> >> >+ struct rte_mbuf **input_bufs, **output_bufs;
> >> >> >+ int res = 0;
> >> >> >+ int allocated = 0;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (test_data == NULL || !test_data->burst_sz) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Unknow burst size\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ ops = rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL,
> >> >> >+ 2 * test_data->total_bufs * sizeof(struct rte_comp_op *),
> >> >> >+ 0, rte_socket_id());
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (ops == NULL) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1,
> >> >> >+ "Can't allocate memory for ops strucures\n");
> >> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ deq_ops = &ops[test_data->total_bufs];
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ if (type == RTE_COMP_COMPRESS) {
> >> >> >+ xform = (struct rte_comp_xform) {
> >> >> >+ .type = RTE_COMP_COMPRESS,
> >> >> >+ .compress = {
> >> >> >+ .algo = RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE,
> >> >> >+ .deflate.huffman = test_data->huffman_enc,
> >> >> >+ .level = level,
> >> >> >+ .window_size = test_data->window_sz,
> >> >> >+ .chksum = RTE_COMP_CHECKSUM_NONE,
> >> >> >+ .hash_algo = RTE_COMP_HASH_ALGO_NONE
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ };
> >> >> >+ input_bufs = test_data->decomp_bufs;
> >> >> >+ output_bufs = test_data->comp_bufs;
> >> >> >+ } else {
> >> >> >+ xform = (struct rte_comp_xform) {
> >> >> >+ .type = RTE_COMP_DECOMPRESS,
> >> >> >+ .decompress = {
> >> >> >+ .algo = RTE_COMP_ALGO_DEFLATE,
> >> >> >+ .chksum = RTE_COMP_CHECKSUM_NONE,
> >> >> >+ .window_size = test_data->window_sz,
> >> >> >+ .hash_algo = RTE_COMP_HASH_ALGO_NONE
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+ };
> >> >> >+ input_bufs = test_data->comp_bufs;
> >> >> >+ output_bufs = test_data->decomp_bufs;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ /* Create private xform */
> >> >> >+ if (rte_compressdev_private_xform_create(dev_id, &xform,
> >> >> >+ &priv_xform) < 0) {
> >> >> >+ RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Private xform could not be
> created\n");
> >> >> >+ res = -1;
> >> >> >+ goto end;
> >> >> >+ }
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ uint64_t tsc_start, tsc_end, tsc_duration;
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+ tsc_start = tsc_end = tsc_duration = 0;
> >> >> >+ if (benchmarking) {
> >> >> >+ tsc_start = rte_rdtsc();
> >> >> >+ num_iter = test_data->num_iter;
> >> >> >+ } else
> >> >> >+ num_iter = 1;
> >> >> Looks like in same code we're doing benchmarking and functional
> >> validation.
> >> >> It can be reorganised to keep validation test separately like done
> >> >> in crypto_perf.
> >> >
> >> >TJ: Ok, makes sense. However in the interests of getting this into
> >> >the
> >> >18.11 release I'd like to defer this refactoring and the remainder
> >> >of your
> >> comments below to the next release.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Next comments - WIP
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Br, Tomek
More information about the dev
mailing list