Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] app/test: add allocator performance benchmark

From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
	Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] app/test: add allocator performance benchmark
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:51:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YeWQcZ0azt3fGtpK@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YeWPnRxq1Nvmzf9R@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:47:41PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:07:57AM +0200, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
> > Memory allocator performance is crucial to applications that deal
> > with large amount of memory or allocate frequently. DPDK allocator
> > performance is affected by EAL options, API used and, at least,
> > allocation size. New autotest is intended to be run with different
> > EAL options. It measures performance with a range of sizes
> > for dirrerent APIs: rte_malloc, rte_zmalloc, and rte_memzone_reserve.
> > 
> > Work distribution between allocation and deallocation depends on EAL
> > options. The test prints both times and total time to ease comparison.
> > 
> > Memory can be filled with zeroes at different points of allocation path,
> > but it always takes considerable fraction of overall timing. This is why
> > the test measures filling speed and prints how long clearing takes
> > for each size as a reference (for rte_memzone_reserve estimations
> > are printed).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> What is the expected running time of this test? When I tried it out on my
> machine it appears to hang after the following output:
> 
> 	USER1:         4096   10000        3.44        1.11        4.56             0.67
> 	USER1:        65536   10000       21.85       14.75       36.60             9.38
> 	USER1:      1048576   10000      481.40      329.96      811.36           147.62
> 
Just realised I stripped a bit too much context here, including section
title too:

USER1: Performance: rte_malloc
USER1:     Size (B)    Runs  Alloc (us)   Free (us)  Total (us)      memset (us)
USER1:           64   10000        0.10        0.04        0.14             0.02
USER1:          128   10000        0.14        0.05        0.20             0.01
USER1:         1024   10000        2.39        0.15        2.54             0.06
USER1:         4096   10000        3.44        1.11        4.56             0.67
USER1:        65536   10000       21.85       14.75       36.60             9.38
USER1:      1048576   10000      481.40      329.96      811.36           147.62