From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: ling.ma.program@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, maze@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] inet: Get critical word in first 64bit of cache line
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:18:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1359937109.30177.128.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130203.160855.1118626925419072868.davem@davemloft.net>
On Sun, 2013-02-03 at 16:08 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 07:03:55 -0800
>
> > From: Ma Ling <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
> >
> > In order to reduce memory latency when last level cache miss occurs,
> > modern CPUs i.e. x86 and arm introduced Critical Word First(CWF) or
> > Early Restart(ER) to get data ASAP. For CWF if critical word is first
> > member
> > in cache line, memory feed CPU with critical word, then fill others
> > data in cache line one by one, otherwise after critical word it must
> > cost more cycle to fill the remaining cache line. For Early First CPU
> > will restart until critical word in cache line reaches.
> >
> > Hash value is critical word, so in this patch we place it as first
> > member in cache line (sock address is cache-line aligned), and it is
> > also good for Early Restart platform as well .
> >
> > [edumazet: respin on net-next after commit ce43b03e8889]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ma Ling <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>
> I completely agree with the other response to this patch in that
> the description is bogus.
>
> If CWF is implemented in the cpu, it should exactly relieve us from
> having to move things around in structures so carefully like this.
>
> Either the patch should be completely dropped (modern cpus don't
> need this) or the commit message changed to reflect reality.
>
> It really makes a terrible impression upon me when the patch says
> something which in fact is 180 degrees from reality.
Hmm.
Maybe the changelog is misleading, or maybe all the performance gains I
have from this patch are probably some artifact or old/bad hardware, or
something else.
(Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5660 @ 2.80GHz)
# ./cwf
looking-up aligned time 108712072,
looking-up unaligned time 113268256
looking-up aligned time 108677032,
looking-up unaligned time 113297636
(Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5679 @ 3.20GHz)
# ./cwf
looking-up aligned time 139193589,
looking-up unaligned time 144307821
looking-up aligned time 139136787,
looking-up unaligned time 144277752
My laptop : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz
# ./cwf
looking-up aligned time 84869203,
looking-up unaligned time 86843462
looking-up aligned time 84253003,
looking-up unaligned time 86227675
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define CACHELINE_SZ 64L
#define BIGBUFFER_SZ (64<<20)
# define HP_TIMING_NOW(Var) \
({ unsigned long long _hi, _lo; \
asm volatile ("rdtsc" : "=a" (_lo), "=d" (_hi)); \
(Var) = _hi << 32 | _lo; })
#define repeat_times 20
char *bufzap;
static void zap_cache(void)
{
memset(bufzap, 2, BIGBUFFER_SZ);
memset(bufzap, 3, BIGBUFFER_SZ);
memset(bufzap, 4, BIGBUFFER_SZ);
}
static char *init_buf(void)
{
void *res;
if (posix_memalign(&res, CACHELINE_SZ, BIGBUFFER_SZ)) {
fprintf(stderr, "malloc() failed");
exit(1);
}
memset(res, 1, BIGBUFFER_SZ);
return res;
}
unsigned long total;
static unsigned long random_access(void *buffer,
unsigned int off1,
unsigned int off2,
unsigned int off3)
{
int i;
unsigned int n;
unsigned long sum = 0;
unsigned long *ptr;
srandom(7777);
for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
n = random() % (BIGBUFFER_SZ/CACHELINE_SZ);
ptr = buffer + n*CACHELINE_SZ;
if (ptr[off1])
sum++;
if (ptr[off2])
sum++;
// if (ptr[off3])
// sum++;
}
total += sum;
return sum;
}
static unsigned long test_lookup_time(void *buf,
unsigned int off1,
unsigned int off2,
unsigned int off3)
{
unsigned long i, start, end, best_time = ~0;
for (i = 0; i < repeat_times; i++) {
zap_cache();
HP_TIMING_NOW(start);
random_access(buf, off1, off2, off3);
HP_TIMING_NOW(end);
if (best_time > (end - start))
best_time = (end - start);
}
return best_time;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
char *buf;
unsigned long aligned_time, unaligned_time;
buf = init_buf();
bufzap = init_buf();
aligned_time = test_lookup_time(buf, 0, 2, 4);
unaligned_time = test_lookup_time(buf, 4, 2, 0);
printf("looking-up aligned time %lu, \nlooking-up unaligned time %lu\n", aligned_time, unaligned_time);
aligned_time = test_lookup_time(buf, 0, 2, 4);
unaligned_time = test_lookup_time(buf, 4, 2, 0);
printf("looking-up aligned time %lu, \nlooking-up unaligned time %lu\n", aligned_time, unaligned_time);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-04 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1353900555-5966-1-git-send-email-ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
2012-11-26 6:44 ` [PATCH RFC] [INET]: Get cirtical word in first 64bit of cache line Eric Dumazet
2012-11-26 20:40 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-11-27 13:48 ` Ling Ma
2012-11-27 13:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-02 13:25 ` Ling Ma
2012-12-02 17:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-02-02 15:03 ` [PATCH v2 net-next] inet: Get critical " Eric Dumazet
2013-02-03 21:00 ` saeed bishara
2013-02-03 21:08 ` David Miller
2013-02-04 0:18 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2013-02-04 0:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-02-04 2:53 ` Ling Ma
2013-02-04 3:11 ` Eric Dumazet
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=1359937109.30177.128.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ling.ma.program@gmail.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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