Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1

[Eric Dumazet]

Zhang, Yanmin a Ãcrit :
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:11 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
> > "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
> > > >
> > > > > On linux-2.6.25-rc1 x86_64 :
> > > > >
> > > > > offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xb0
> > > > > offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb8
> > > > > offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xbc
> > > > > offsetof(struct dst_entry, next)=0xc0
> > > > >
> > > > > So it should be optimal... I dont know why tbench prefers __refcnt being 
> > > > > on 0xc0, since in this case lastuse will be on a different cache line...
> > > > >
> > > > > Each incoming IP packet will need to change lastuse, __refcnt and __use, 
> > > > > so keeping them in the same cache line is a win.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect then that even this patch could help tbench, since it avoids 
> > > > > writing lastuse...
> > > > I think your suspicions are right, and even moreso
> > > > it helps to keep __refcnt out of the same cache line
> > > > as input/output/ops which are read-almost-entirely :-
> > > I think you are right. The issue is these three variables sharing the same cache line
> > > with input/output/ops.
> > >
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, but it seems that
> > > > the write traffic to lastuse and __refcnt are about the
> > > > same.  However if we find that __refcnt gets hit more
> > > > than lastuse in this workload, it explains the regression.
> > > I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2 unsigned long
> > > pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The performance is
> > > recovered.
> > >
> > > How about below patch? Almost all performance is recovered with the new patch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.25-rc1/include/net/dst.h	2008-02-21 14:33:43.000000000 +0800
> > > +++ linux-2.6.25-rc1_work/include/net/dst.h	2008-02-21 14:36:22.000000000 +0800
> > > @@ -52,11 +52,10 @@ struct dst_entry
> > >  	unsigned short		header_len;	/* more space at head required */
> > >  	unsigned short		trailer_len;	/* space to reserve at tail */
> > >  
> > > -	u32			metrics[RTAX_MAX];
> > > -	struct dst_entry	*path;
> > > -
> > > -	unsigned long		rate_last;	/* rate limiting for ICMP */
> > >  	unsigned int		rate_tokens;
> > > +	unsigned long		rate_last;	/* rate limiting for ICMP */
> > > +
> > > +	struct dst_entry	*path;
> > >  
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE
> > >  	__u32			tclassid;
> > > @@ -70,10 +69,12 @@ struct dst_entry
> > >  	int			(*output)(struct sk_buff*);
> > >  
> > >  	struct  dst_ops	        *ops;
> > > -		
> > > -	unsigned long		lastuse;
> > > +
> > > +	u32			metrics[RTAX_MAX];
> > > +
> > >  	atomic_t		__refcnt;	/* client references	*/
> > >  	int			__use;
> > > +	unsigned long		lastuse;
> > >  	union {
> > >  		struct dst_entry *next;
> > >  		struct rtable    *rt_next;
> > Well, after this patch, we grow dst_entry by 8 bytes :
> With my .config, it doesn't grow. Perhaps because of CONFIG_NET_CLS_ROUTE, I don't
> enable it. I will move tclassid under ops.
>
> > sizeof(struct dst_entry)=0xd0
> > offsetof(struct dst_entry, input)=0x68
> > offsetof(struct dst_entry, output)=0x70
> > offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb4
> > offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xc0
> > offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xb8
> > sizeof(struct rtable)=0x140
> >
> >
> > So we dirty two cache lines instead of one, unless your cpu have 128 bytes cache lines ?
> >
> > I am quite suprised that my patch to not change lastuse if already set to jiffies changes nothing...
> >
> > If you have some time, could you also test this (unrelated) patch ?
> >
> > We can avoid dirty all the time a cache line of loopback device.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/loopback.c b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > index f2a6e71..0a4186a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > @@ -150,7 +150,10 @@ static int loopback_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> >                 return 0;
> >         }
> >  #endif
> > -       dev->last_rx = jiffies;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +       if (dev->last_rx != jiffies)
> > +#endif
> > +               dev->last_rx = jiffies;
> >  
> >         /* it's OK to use per_cpu_ptr() because BHs are off */
> >         pcpu_lstats = netdev_priv(dev);
> Although I didn't test it, I don't think it's ok. The key is __refcnt shares the same
> cache line with ops/input/output.

Note it was unrelated to struct dst, but dirtying of one cache line of 
'loopback netdevice'

I tested it, and tbench result was better with this patch : 890 MB/s instead 
of 870 MB/s on a bi dual core machine.


I was curious of the potential gain on your 16 cores (4x4) machine.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/