From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, tariqt@mellanox.com,
ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, toke@toke.dk,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] avoid indirect calls for DMA direct mappings
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:05:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207170558.5679beae@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181207164435.18f8ffed@redhat.com>
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:44:35 +0100
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 02:21:42 +0100
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:24:38PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 06/12/2018 20:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 06:54:17PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > >>> I'm pretty sure we used to assign dummy_dma_ops explicitly to devices at
> > >>> the point we detected the ACPI properties are wrong - that shouldn't be too
> > >>> much of a headache to go back to.
> > >>
> > >> Ok. I've cooked up a patch to use NULL as the go direct marker.
> > >> This cleans up a few things nicely, but also means we now need to
> > >> do the bypass scheme for all ops, not just the fast path. But we
> > >> probably should just move the slow path ops out of line anyway,
> > >> so I'm not worried about it. This has survived some very basic
> > >> testing on x86, and really needs to be cleaned up and split into
> > >> multiple patches..
> > >
> > > I've also just finished hacking something up to keep the arm64 status quo -
> > > I'll need to actually test it tomorrow, but the overall diff looks like the
> > > below.
> >
> > Nice. I created a branch that picked up your bits and also the ideas
> > from Linus, and the result looks reall nice. I'll still need a signoff
> > for your bits, though.
> >
> > Jesper, can you give this a spin if it changes the number even further?
> >
> > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git dma-direct-calls.2
> >
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/dma-direct-calls.2
>
> I'll test it soon...
>
> I looked at my perf stat recording on my existing tests[1] and there
> seems to be significantly more I-cache usage.
The I-cache pressure seems to be lower with the new branch, and
performance improved with 4.5 nanosec.
> Copy-paste from my summary[1]:
> [1] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/areas/dma/dma01_test_hellwig_direct_dma.org#summary-of-results
Updated:
* Summary of results
Using XDP_REDIRECT between drivers RX ixgbe(10G) redirect TX i40e(40G),
via BPF devmap (used samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_map) . (Note choose
higher TX link-speed to assure that we don't to have a TX bottleneck).
The baseline-kernel is at commit [[https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/ef78e5ec9214][ef78e5ec9214]], which is commit just
before Hellwigs changes in this tree.
Performance numbers in packets/sec (XDP_REDIRECT ixgbe -> i40e):
- 11913154 (11,913,154) pps - baseline compiled without retpoline
- 7438283 (7,438,283) pps - regression due to CONFIG_RETPOLINE
- 9610088 (9,610,088) pps - mitigation via Hellwig dma-direct-calls
- 10049223 (10,049,223) pps - Hellwig branch dma-direct-calls.2
Do notice at these extreme speeds the pps number increase rabbit with
small changes, e.g. difference to new branch is:
- (1/9610088-1/10049223)*10^9 = 4.54 nanosec faster
From the inst per cycle, it is clear that retpolines are stalling the CPU
pipeline:
| pps | insn per cycle |
|------------+----------------|
| 11,913,154 | 2.39 |
| 7,438,283 | 1.54 |
| 9,610,088 | 2.04 |
| 10,049,223 | 1.99 |
| | |
Strangely the Instruction-Cache is also under heavier pressure:
| pps | l2_rqsts.all_code_rd | l2_rqsts.code_rd_hit | l2_rqsts.code_rd_miss |
|------------+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
| 11,913,154 | 874,547 | 742,335 | 132,198 |
| 7,438,283 | 649,513 | 547,581 | 101,945 |
| 9,610,088 | 2,568,064 | 2,001,369 | 566,683 |
| 10,049,223 | 1,232,818 | 1,152,514 | 80,299 |
| | | | |
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-07 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-06 15:37 [RFC] avoid indirect calls for DMA direct mappings Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 15:37 ` [PATCH] dma-mapping: bypass indirect calls for dma-direct Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 17:40 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-12-06 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 17:43 ` [RFC] avoid indirect calls for DMA direct mappings Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-12-06 18:29 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-06 18:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 18:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-06 18:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-06 18:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 18:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-06 18:54 ` Robin Murphy
2018-12-06 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-06 20:24 ` Robin Murphy
2018-12-07 1:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-12-07 15:44 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-12-07 16:05 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181207170558.5679beae@redhat.com \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tariqt@mellanox.com \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox