From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] vhost: enable any layout
	feature
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:37:44 +0800
Message-ID: <20161010033744.GW1597@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1474872056-24665-2-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <CAOaVG17N_giiwPwWg-=8eHCCTGOcLHPxJBUxrx04YhLp2EjCdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160926221112-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20160927031158.GA25823@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160927224935-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20160928022848.GE1597@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <bfe463e9-0d1a-c136-4115-7620f9e6ec90@redhat.com>
 <20160929205047-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <2889e609-f750-a4e1-66f8-768bb07a2339@redhat.com>
 <20160929231252-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org,
 qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B124475E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160929231252-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:21:48PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:05:22PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 09/29/2016 07:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Yes but two points.
> 
> 1. why is this memset expensive?

I don't have the exact answer, but just some rough thoughts:

It's an external clib function: there is a call stack and the
IP register will bounch back and forth. BTW, It's kind of an
overkill to use that for resetting 14 bytes structure.

Some trick like
    *(struct virtio_net_hdr *)hdr = {0, };

Or even 
    hdr->xxx = 0;
    hdr->yyy = 0;

should behaviour better.

There was an example: the vhost enqueue optmization patchset from
Zhihong [0] uses memset, and it introduces more than 15% drop (IIRC)
on my Ivybridge server: it has no such issue on his server though.

[0]: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-August/045272.html

	--yliu

> Is the test completely skipping looking
>    at the packet otherwise?
> 
> 2. As long as we are doing this, see
> 	Alignment vs. Networking
> 	========================
> in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> 
> 
> > From the micro-benchmarks results, we can expect +10% compared to
> > indirect descriptors, and + 5% compared to using 2 descs in the
> > virtqueue.
> > Also, it should have the same benefits as indirect descriptors for 0%
> > pkt loss (as we can fill 2x more packets in the virtqueue).
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Maxime