All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: "rsanford@akamai.com" <rsanford@akamai.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements ***
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:19:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BE54F058557D9A4FAC1D84E2FC6D87570D52F2CE@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F9B5E47-8083-443E-96EE-CBC41695BE43@intel.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiles, Keith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:02 AM
> To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
> Cc: rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements ***
> 
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the current implementation of the DPDK timer library, timers can be
> > created and set to be handled by a target lcore by adding it to a
> > skiplist that corresponds to that lcore.  However, if an application
> > enables multiple lcores, and each of these lcores repeatedly attempts
> > to install timers on the same target lcore, overall application
> > throughput will be reduced as all lcores contend to acquire the lock
> > guarding the single skiplist of pending timers.
> >
> > This patchset addresses this scenario by adding an array of skiplists
> > to each lcore's priv_timer struct, such that when lcore i installs a
> > timer on lcore k, the timer will be added to the ith skiplist for
> > lcore k.  If lcore j installs a timer on lcore k simultaneously,
> > lcores i and j can both proceed since they will be acquiring different
> > locks for different lists.
> >
> > When lcore k processes its pending timers, it will traverse each
> > skiplist in its array and acquire a skiplist's lock while a run list
> > is broken out; meanwhile, all other lists can continue to be modified.
> > Then, all run lists for lcore k are collected and traversed together
> > so timers are executed in their global order.
> 
> What is the performance and/or latency added to the timeout now?
> 
> I worry about the case when just about all of the cores are enabled, which
> could be as high was 128 or more now.

There is a case in the timer_perf_autotest that runs rte_timer_manage with zero timers that can give a sense of the added latency.   When run with one lcore, it completes in around 25 cycles.  When run with 43 lcores (the highest I have access to at the moment), rte_timer_mange completes in around 155 cycles.  So it looks like each added lcore adds around 3 cycles of overhead for checking empty lists in my testing.

> 
> One option is to have the lcore j that wants to install a timer on lcore k to pass
> a message via a ring to lcore k to add that timer. We could even add that logic
> into setting a timer on a different lcore then the caller in the current API. The
> ring would be a multi-producer and single consumer, we still have the lock.
> What am I missing here?
> 

I did try this approach: initially I had a multi-producer single-consumer ring that would hold requests to add or delete a timer from lcore k's skiplist, but it didn't really give an appreciable increase in my test application throughput.  In profiling this solution, the hotspot had moved from acquiring the skiplist's spinlock to the rte_atomic32_cmpset that the multiple-producer ring code uses to manipulate the head pointer.

Then, I tried multiple single-producer single-consumer rings per target lcore.  This removed the ring hotspot, but the performance didn't increase as much as with the proposed solution.  These solutions also add overhead to rte_timer_manage, as it would have to process the rings and then process the skiplists.

One other thing to note is that a solution that uses such messages changes the use models for the timer.  One interesting example is:  
- lcore I enqueues a message to install a timer on lcore k
- lcore k runs rte_timer_manage, processes its messages and adds the timer to its list
- lcore I then enqueues a message to stop the same timer, now owned by lcore k
- lcore k does not run rte_timer_manage again
- lcore I wants to free the timer but it might not be safe

Even though lcore I has successfully enqueued the request to stop the timer (and delete it from lcore k's pending list), it hasn't actually been deleted from the list yet,  so freeing it could corrupt the list.  This case exists in the existing timer stress tests.

Another interesting scenario is:
- lcore I resets a timer to install it on lcore k
- lcore j resets the same timer to install it on lcore k
- then, lcore k runs timer_manage

Lcore j's message obviates lcore i's message, and it would be wasted work for lcore k to process it, so we should mark it to be skipped over.   Handling all the edge cases was more complex than the solution proposed.

> >
> > Gabriel Carrillo (3):
> >  timer: add per-installer pending lists for each lcore
> >  timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads
> >  doc: update timer lib docs
> >
> > doc/guides/prog_guide/timer_lib.rst |  19 ++-
> > lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c        | 329 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> ----
> > lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h        |   9 +-
> > 3 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.6.4
> >
> 
> Regards,
> Keith

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-23 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-23 14:47 Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-23 14:47 ` [PATCH 1/3] timer: add per-installer pending lists for each lcore Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-25 20:27   ` [PATCH v2 " Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-29 10:57     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-08-29 16:13       ` Carrillo, Erik G
2017-08-29 15:11   ` [PATCH " Stephen Hemminger
2017-08-23 14:47 ` [PATCH 2/3] timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-25 20:27   ` [PATCH v2 " Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-23 14:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc: update timer lib docs Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-25 20:27   ` [PATCH v2 " Gabriel Carrillo
2017-08-23 15:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements *** Wiles, Keith
2017-08-23 16:19   ` Carrillo, Erik G [this message]
2017-08-23 16:50     ` Wiles, Keith
2017-08-23 19:28       ` Carrillo, Erik G
2017-08-23 21:04         ` Wiles, Keith
2017-08-24 14:08           ` Carrillo, Erik G
2017-08-25 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 " Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-13 22:05   ` [PATCH v3 0/3] timer library enhancement Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-13 22:05     ` [PATCH v3 1/3] timer: add multiple pending lists option for each lcore Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-13 22:05     ` [PATCH v3 2/3] timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-13 22:05     ` [PATCH v3 3/3] doc: update timer lib docs Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-18 16:19       ` Mcnamara, John
2017-09-19 17:04         ` Carrillo, Erik G
2017-09-19 17:02     ` [PATCH v4 0/3] timer library enhancement Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-19 17:02       ` [PATCH v4 1/3] timer: add multiple pending lists option for each lcore Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-19 17:02       ` [PATCH v4 2/3] timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-09-19 17:02       ` [PATCH v4 3/3] doc: update timer lib docs Erik Gabriel Carrillo
2017-10-11 20:42       ` [PATCH v4 0/3] timer library enhancement Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-04 22:42         ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-05 21:53           ` Carrillo, Erik G

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=BE54F058557D9A4FAC1D84E2FC6D87570D52F2CE@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=erik.g.carrillo@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
    --cc=rsanford@akamai.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements ***' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.