Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:14:38PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 17-04-26 08:08 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:48:29PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > On 17-04-26 02:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:29:40PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > > > On 17-04-25 12:04 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>> > I have experience with dealing with a massive amount of various dumps
>> > and (batch) sets and it always boils down to one thing:
>> > _how much data is exchanged between user and kernel_
>> > 3 flags encoded as bits in a u32 attribute cost 64 bits.
>> > Encoded separately cost 3x that.
>> > 
>> > Believe me, it _does make a difference_ in performance.
>> > 
>> > My least favorite subsystem is bridge. The bridge code has
>> > tons of flags in those entries that are sent to/from kernel as u8
>> > attributes. It is painful.
>> > 
>> > For something more recent, lets look at this commit from Ben on Flower:
>> > +       TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_TTL,        /* u8 - 8 bits */
>> > +       TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_BOS,        /* u8 - 1 bit */
>> > +       TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_TC,         /* u8 - 3 bits */
>> > +       TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_LABEL,      /* be32 - 20 bits */
>> > 
>> > Yes, that looks pretty, but:
>> > That would have fit in one attribute with a u32. Mask attributes would
>> > be eliminated with a second 32 bit - all in the same singular
>> > attribute.
>> > 
>> > Imagine if i have 1M flower entries. If you add up the mask the cost
>> > of these things is about 3*2*64 bits more per entry compared to putting
>> > the mpls info/mask in one attribute.
>> > At 1M entries that is a few MBs of data being exchanged.
>> 
>> I can do the math :) Yet still, I would like to see the numbers :)
>> Because I believe that is the only way to end this lenghty converstation
>> once and forever...
>> 
>
>Jiri, what are you arguing about if you have done the math? ;->

I can do 3*2*64. What I cannot do is to figure out the real performance
impact.


>You want me to show you that getting or setting less data is good for
>performance?
>Look at the third patch: Why do i think it is necessary to send only
>actions that have changed? Precisely to reduce the amount of data
>being transported. The second patch - to reduce the amount of crossing
>user space to kernel space (which is going to happen more with increased
>data I have to transport between the user and the kernel).
>
>Again: You are looking at this from a manageability point of view which
>is useful but not the only input into a design. If i can squeeze more
>data without killing usability - I am all for it. It just doesnt
>compute that it is ok to use a flag per attribute because it looks
>beautiful.

Hmm. Now that I'm thinking about it, why don't we have NLA_FLAGS with
couple of helpers around it? It will be obvious what the attr is, all
kernel code would use the same helpers. Would be nice.