[PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: mvneta: improve rx/tx performance

[jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)]

Hi Gregory,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:21:35 +0100 Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

> Hi Jisheng,
>  
>  On lun., f?vr. 20 2017, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:
> 
> > In hot code path such as mvneta_rx_swbm(), we access fields of rx_desc
> > and tx_desc. These DMA descs are allocated by dma_alloc_coherent, they
> > are uncacheable if the device isn't cache coherent, reading from
> > uncached memory is fairly slow.
> >
> > patch1 reuses the read out status to getting status field of rx_desc
> > again.
> >
> > patch2 avoids getting buf_phys_addr from rx_desc again in
> > mvneta_rx_hwbm by reusing the phys_addr variable.
> >
> > patch3 avoids reading from tx_desc as much as possible by store what
> > we need in local variable.
> >
> > We get the following performance data on Marvell BG4CT Platforms
> > (tested with iperf):
> >
> > before the patch:
> > sending 1GB in mvneta_tx()(disabled TSO) costs 793553760ns
> >
> > after the patch:
> > sending 1GB in mvneta_tx()(disabled TSO) costs 719953800ns
> >
> > we saved 9.2% time.
> >
> > patch4 uses cacheable memory to store the rx buffer DMA address.
> >
> > We get the following performance data on Marvell BG4CT Platforms
> > (tested with iperf):
> >
> > before the patch:
> > recving 1GB in mvneta_rx_swbm() costs 1492659600 ns
> >
> > after the patch:
> > recving 1GB in mvneta_rx_swbm() costs 1421565640 ns  
> 
> Could you explain who you get this number?

Thanks for your review.

The measurement is simple: record how much time we spent in mvneta_rx_swbm()
for receiving 1GB data, something as below:

mvneta_rx_swbm()
{
	static u64 total_time;
	u64 t1, t2;
	static u64 count;

	t1 = sched_clock();
	...

	if (rcvd_pkts) {
		...
		t2 = sched_clock() - t1;
		total_time += t2;
		count += rcvd_bytes;;
		if (count >= 0x40000000) {
			printk("!!!! %lld %lld\n", total_time, count);
			total_time = 0;
			count = 0;
		}
	...
}

> 
> receiving 1GB in 1.42 second means having a bandwidth of
> 8/1.42=5.63 Gb/s, that means that you are using at least a 10Gb
> interface.

hmmm, we just measured the time spent in mvneta_rx_swbm(), so we can't solve
the bandwidth as 8/1.42, what do you think?

> 
> When I used iperf I didn't have this kind of granularity:
> iperf -c 192.168.10.1 -n 1024M
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Client connecting to 192.168.10.19, TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 43.8 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [  3] local 192.168.10.28 port 53086 connected with 192.168.10.1 port 5001
> [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
> [  3]  0.0- 9.1 sec  1.00 GBytes   942 Mbits/sec
> 
> Also without HWBM enabled (so with the same configuration of your test),
> I didn't noticed any improvement with the patch set applied. But at

>From bandwidth point of view, yes, there's no improvement. But from cpu
time/load point of view, I do see a trivial improvement. Could you also
did a simple test from your side to see whether we have similar improvement
data?

Thanks,
Jisheng



> least I didn't see any regression with or without HWBM.
> 
> Gregory
> 
> >
> > We saved 4.76% time.
> >
> > Basically, patch1 and patch4 do what Arnd mentioned in [1].
> >
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > I added "Suggested-by you" tag, I hope you don't mind ;)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg405889.html
> >
> > Since v2:
> >   - add Gregory's ack to patch1
> >   - only get rx buffer DMA address from cacheable memory for mvneta_rx_swbm()
> >   - add patch 2 to read rx_desc->buf_phys_addr once in mvneta_rx_hwbm()
> >   - add patch 3 to avoid reading from tx_desc as much as possible
> >
> > Since v1:
> >   - correct the performance data typo
> >
> >
> > Jisheng Zhang (4):
> >   net: mvneta: avoid getting status from rx_desc as much as possible
> >   net: mvneta: avoid getting buf_phys_addr from rx_desc again
> >   net: mvneta: avoid reading from tx_desc as much as possible
> >   net: mvneta: Use cacheable memory to store the rx buffer DMA address
> >
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >
> > -- 
> > 2.11.0
> >  
>