Re: [RFC] udp: some improvements on RX path.

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

Hi Eric,

On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 18:43 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> We currently access 3 cache lines from an skb in receive queue while
> holding receive queue lock :
> 
> First cache line (contains ->next / prev pointers )
> 2nd cache line (skb->peeked)
> 3rd cache line (skb->truesize)
> 
> I believe we could get rid of skb->peeked completely.
> 
> I will cook a patch, but basically the idea is that the last owner of a
> skb (right before skb->users becomes 0) can have the 'ownership' and
> thus increase stats.

Agreed.

> The 3rd cache line miss is easily avoided by the following patch.

I run some performance tests on top of your patch "net: reorganize
struct sock for better data locality", and I see an additional ~7%
improvement on top of that, in the udp flood scenario. 

In my tests, the topmost perf offenders for the u/s process are now:

   9.98%  udp_sink  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] udp_rmem_release
   8.76%  udp_sink  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] inet_recvmsg
   6.71%  udp_sink  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
   5.40%  udp_sink  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __skb_try_recv_datagram
   5.19%  udp_sink  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string

udp_rmem_release() spends most of its time doing:

    atomic_sub(size, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc);

I see a cacheline miss while accessing sk_rmem_alloc; most probably due
to sk_rmem_alloc being updated by the writer outside the rx queue lock.

Moving such update inside the lock show remove this cache miss but will
increase the pressure on the rx lock. What do you think ?

inet_recvmsg() is there because with "net: reorganize struct sock for
better data locality" we get a cache miss while accessing skc_rxhash in
sock_rps_record_flow(); touching sk_drops is dirtying that cacheline -
sorry for not noticing this before. Do you have CONFIG_RPS disabled ?

> But I also want to work on the idea I gave few days back, having a
> separate queue and use splice to transfer the 'softirq queue' into
> a calm queue in a different cache line.
> 
> I expect a 50 % performance increase under load, maybe 1.5 Mpps.

It should work nicely under contention, but won't that increase the
overhead for the uncontended/single flow scenario ? the user space
reader needs to acquire 2 lock when splicing the 'softirq queue'. On my
system ksoftirqd and the u/s process work at similar speeds, so splicing
will happen quite often. 

Paolo