Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 00/15] Device Memory TCP

[Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:54 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/3/5 10:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Perf - page-pool benchmark:
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > bench_page_pool_simple.ko tests with and without these changes:
> > https://pastebin.com/raw/ncHDwAbn
> >
> > AFAIK the number that really matters in the perf tests is the
> > 'tasklet_page_pool01_fast_path Per elem'. This one measures at about 8
> > cycles without the changes but there is some 1 cycle noise in some
> > results.
> >
> > With the patches this regresses to 9 cycles with the changes but there
> > is 1 cycle noise occasionally running this test repeatedly.
> >
> > Lastly I tried disable the static_branch_unlikely() in
> > netmem_is_net_iov() check. To my surprise disabling the
> > static_branch_unlikely() check reduces the fast path back to 8 cycles,
> > but the 1 cycle noise remains.
> >
>
> The last sentence seems to be suggesting the above 1 ns regresses is caused
> by the static_branch_unlikely() checking?

Note it's not a 1ns regression, it's looks like maybe a 1 cycle
regression (slightly less than 1ns if I'm reading the output of the
test correctly):

# clean net-next
time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool01_fast_path Per elem: 8 cycles(tsc)
2.993 ns (step:0)

# with patches
time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool01_fast_path Per elem: 9 cycles(tsc)
3.679 ns (step:0)

# with patches and with diff that disables static branching:
time_bench: Type:tasklet_page_pool01_fast_path Per elem: 8 cycles(tsc)
3.248 ns (step:0)

I do see noise in the test results between run and run, and any
regression (if any) is slightly obfuscated by the noise, so it's a bit
hard to make confident statements. So far it looks like a ~0.25ns
regression without static branch and about ~0.65ns with static branch.

Honestly when I saw all 3 results were within some noise I did not
investigate more, but if this looks concerning to you I can dig
further. I likely need to gather a few test runs to filter out the
noise and maybe investigate the assembly my compiler is generating to
maybe narrow down what changes there.

-- 
Thanks,
Mina