Subject: Re: Bypass at packet-page level (Was: Optimizing instruction-cache, more packets at each stage)

From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:25:30 +0100

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:50:27 -0800
Tom Herbert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:10:16 +0100
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:50:16 -0800 John Fastabend <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>  
> >> > On 16-01-25 09:09 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:  
> >> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> >> > > <[email-masked]> wrote:  
> >> > >>  
> >> [...]  
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There are two ideas, getting mixed up here.  (1) bundling from the
> >> > >> RX-ring, (2) allowing to pick up the "packet-page" directly.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Bundling (1) is something that seems natural, and which help us
> >> > >> amortize the cost between layers (and utilizes icache better). Lets
> >> > >> keep that in another thread.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This (2) direct forward of "packet-pages" is a fairly extreme idea,
> >> > >> BUT it have the potential of being an new integration point for
> >> > >> "selective" bypass-solutions and bringing RAW/af_packet (RX) up-to
> >> > >> speed with bypass-solutions.  
> >> >  
> >> [...]  
> >> >
> >> > Jesper, at least for you (2) case what are we missing with the
> >> > bifurcated/queue splitting work? Are you really after systems
> >> > without SR-IOV support or are you trying to get this on the order
> >> > of queues instead of VFs.  
> >>
> >> I'm not saying something is missing for bifurcated/queue splitting work.
> >> I'm not trying to work-around SR-IOV.
> >>
> >> This an extreme idea, which I got while looking at the lowest RX layer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Before working any further on this idea/path, I need/want to evaluate
> >> if it makes sense from a performance point of view.  I need to evaluate
> >> if "pulling" out these "packet-pages" is fast enough to compete with
> >> DPDK/netmap.  Else it makes no sense to work on this path.
> >>
> >> As a first step to evaluate this lowest RX layer, I'm simply hacking
> >> the drivers (ixgbe and mlx5) to drop/discard packets within-the-driver.
> >> For now, simply replacing napi_gro_receive() with dev_kfree_skb(), and
> >> measuring the "RX-drop" performance.
> >>
> >> Next step was to avoid the skb alloc+free calls, but doing so is more
> >> complicated that I first anticipated, as the SKB is tied in fairly
> >> heavily.  Thus, right now I'm instead hooking in my bulk alloc+free
> >> API, as that will remove/mitigate most of the overhead of the
> >> kmem_cache/slab-allocators.  
> >
> > I've tried to deduct that kind of speeds we can achieve, at this lowest
> > RX layer. By in the mlx5/100G driver drop packets directly in the driver.
> > Just replacing replacing napi_gro_receive() with dev_kfree_skb(), was
> > fairly depressing, showing only 6.2Mpps (6253970 pps => 159.9 ns) (single core).
> >
> > Looking at the perf report showed major cache-miss in eth_type_trans(29%/47ns).
> >
> > And driver is hitting the SLUB slowpath quite badly (because it
> > prealloc SKBs and binds to RX ring, usually this test case would hits
> > SLUB "recycle" fastpath):
> >
> > Group-report: kmem_cache/SLUB allocator functions ::
> >   5.00 % ~=  8.0 ns <= __slab_free
> >   4.91 % ~=  7.9 ns <= cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.65
> >   4.22 % ~=  6.7 ns <= kmem_cache_alloc
> >   1.68 % ~=  2.7 ns <= kmem_cache_free
> >   1.10 % ~=  1.8 ns <= ___slab_alloc
> >   0.93 % ~=  1.5 ns <= __cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.54
> >   0.65 % ~=  1.0 ns <= __slab_alloc.isra.74
> >   0.26 % ~=  0.4 ns <= put_cpu_partial
> >  Sum: 18.75 % => calc: 30.0 ns (sum: 30.0 ns) => Total: 159.9 ns
> >
> > To get around the cache-miss in eth_type_trans(), I created a
> > "icache-loop" in mlx5e_poll_rx_cq() and pull all RX-ring packets "out",
> > before calling eth_type_trans(), reducing cost to 2.45%.
> >
> > To mitigate the SLUB slowpath, I used my slab + SKB-napi bulk API .  And
> > also tuned SLUB (with slub_nomerge slub_min_objects=128) to get bigger
> > slab-pages, thus bigger bulk opportunities.
> >
> > This helped a lot, I can now drop 12Mpps (12,088,767 => 82.7 ns).
> >
> > Group-report: kmem_cache/SLUB allocator functions ::
> >   4.99 % ~=  4.1 ns <= kmem_cache_alloc_bulk
> >   2.87 % ~=  2.4 ns <= kmem_cache_free_bulk
> >   0.24 % ~=  0.2 ns <= ___slab_alloc
> >   0.23 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __slab_free
> >   0.21 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.54
> >   0.17 % ~=  0.1 ns <= cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.65
> >   0.07 % ~=  0.1 ns <= put_cpu_partial
> >   0.04 % ~=  0.0 ns <= unfreeze_partials.isra.71
> >   0.03 % ~=  0.0 ns <= get_partial_node.isra.72
> >  Sum:  8.85 % => calc: 7.3 ns (sum: 7.3 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Full perf report output below signature, is from optimized case.
> >
> > SKB related cost is 22.9 ns.  However 51.7% (11.84ns) cost originates
> > from memset of the SKB.
> >
> > Group-report: related to pattern "skb" ::
> >  17.92 % ~= 14.8 ns <= __napi_alloc_skb   <== 80% memset(0) / rep stos
> >   3.29 % ~=  2.7 ns <= skb_release_data
> >   2.20 % ~=  1.8 ns <= napi_consume_skb
> >   1.86 % ~=  1.5 ns <= skb_release_head_state
> >   1.20 % ~=  1.0 ns <= skb_put
> >   1.14 % ~=  0.9 ns <= skb_release_all
> >   0.02 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __kfree_skb_flush
> >  Sum: 27.63 % => calc: 22.9 ns (sum: 22.9 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Doing a crude extrapolation, 82.7 ns subtract, SLUB (7.3 ns) and SKB
> > (22.9 ns) related => 52.5 ns -> extrapolate 19 Mpps would be the
> > maximum speed we can pull off packet-pages from the RX ring.
> >
> > I don't know if 19Mpps (52.5 ns "overhead") is fast enough, to compete
> > with just mapping a RX HW queue/ring to netmap or via SR-IOV to DPDK(?)
> >
> > But it was interesting to see how the lowest RX layer performs...  
> 
> Cool stuff!

Thanks :-)
 
> Looking at the typical driver receive path, I'm wonder if we should
> beak netif_receive_skb (napi_gro_receive) into two parts. One utility
> function to create a list of received skb's and prefetch the data
> called as ring is processed, the other one to give the list to the
> stack (e.g. netif_receive_skbs) and defer eth_type_trans as long as
> possible. Is something like this what you are contemplating?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm contemplating :-)  That is idea "(1)".

A natural extension to this work, which I expect Tom will love, is to
also use the idea for RPS.  Once we have a SKB list in stack/GRO-layer,
then we could build a local sk_buff_head list for each remote CPU, by
calling get_rps_cpu().   And then enqueue_list_to_backlog, by a
skb_queue_splice_tail(&cpu_list, &cpu->sd->input_pkt_queue) call.

This would amortize the cost of transferring packets to a remote CPU,
which Eric AFAIK points out is costing approx ~133ns.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

> > Perf-report script:
> >  * https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/bin/perf_report_pps_stats.pl
> >
> > Report: ALL functions ::
> >  19.71 % ~= 16.3 ns <= mlx5e_poll_rx_cq
> >  17.92 % ~= 14.8 ns <= __napi_alloc_skb
> >   9.54 % ~=  7.9 ns <= __free_page_frag
> >   7.16 % ~=  5.9 ns <= mlx5e_get_cqe
> >   6.37 % ~=  5.3 ns <= mlx5e_post_rx_wqes
> >   4.99 % ~=  4.1 ns <= kmem_cache_alloc_bulk
> >   3.70 % ~=  3.1 ns <= __alloc_page_frag
> >   3.29 % ~=  2.7 ns <= skb_release_data
> >   2.87 % ~=  2.4 ns <= kmem_cache_free_bulk
> >   2.45 % ~=  2.0 ns <= eth_type_trans
> >   2.43 % ~=  2.0 ns <= get_page_from_freelist
> >   2.36 % ~=  2.0 ns <= swiotlb_map_page
> >   2.20 % ~=  1.8 ns <= napi_consume_skb
> >   1.86 % ~=  1.5 ns <= skb_release_head_state
> >   1.25 % ~=  1.0 ns <= free_pages_prepare
> >   1.20 % ~=  1.0 ns <= skb_put
> >   1.14 % ~=  0.9 ns <= skb_release_all
> >   0.77 % ~=  0.6 ns <= __free_pages_ok
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= get_pfnblock_flags_mask
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= swiotlb_dma_mapping_error
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= unmap_single
> >   0.58 % ~=  0.5 ns <= _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> >   0.57 % ~=  0.5 ns <= free_one_page
> >   0.56 % ~=  0.5 ns <= swiotlb_unmap_page
> >   0.52 % ~=  0.4 ns <= _raw_spin_lock
> >   0.46 % ~=  0.4 ns <= __mod_zone_page_state
> >   0.36 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __rmqueue
> >   0.36 % ~=  0.3 ns <= net_rx_action
> >   0.34 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __alloc_pages_nodemask
> >   0.31 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __zone_watermark_ok
> >   0.27 % ~=  0.2 ns <= mlx5e_napi_poll
> >   0.24 % ~=  0.2 ns <= ___slab_alloc
> >   0.23 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __slab_free
> >   0.22 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __list_del_entry
> >   0.21 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.54
> >   0.21 % ~=  0.2 ns <= next_zones_zonelist
> >   0.20 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __list_add
> >   0.17 % ~=  0.1 ns <= __do_softirq
> >   0.17 % ~=  0.1 ns <= cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.65
> >   0.16 % ~=  0.1 ns <= __inc_zone_state
> >   0.12 % ~=  0.1 ns <= _raw_spin_unlock
> >   0.12 % ~=  0.1 ns <= zone_statistics
> >  (Percent limit(0.1%) stop at "mlx5e_poll_tx_cq")
> >  Sum: 99.45 % => calc: 82.3 ns (sum: 82.3 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: related to pattern "eth_type_trans|mlx5|ixgbe|__iowrite64_copy" ::
> >  (Driver related)
> >   19.71 % ~= 16.3 ns <= mlx5e_poll_rx_cq
> >   7.16 % ~=  5.9 ns <= mlx5e_get_cqe
> >   6.37 % ~=  5.3 ns <= mlx5e_post_rx_wqes
> >   2.45 % ~=  2.0 ns <= eth_type_trans
> >   0.27 % ~=  0.2 ns <= mlx5e_napi_poll
> >   0.09 % ~=  0.1 ns <= mlx5e_poll_tx_cq
> >  Sum: 36.05 % => calc: 29.8 ns (sum: 29.8 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: DMA functions ::
> >   2.36 % ~=  2.0 ns <= swiotlb_map_page
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= unmap_single
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= swiotlb_dma_mapping_error
> >   0.56 % ~=  0.5 ns <= swiotlb_unmap_page
> >  Sum:  4.10 % => calc: 3.4 ns (sum: 3.4 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: page_frag_cache functions ::
> >   9.54 % ~=  7.9 ns <= __free_page_frag
> >   3.70 % ~=  3.1 ns <= __alloc_page_frag
> >   2.43 % ~=  2.0 ns <= get_page_from_freelist
> >   1.25 % ~=  1.0 ns <= free_pages_prepare
> >   0.77 % ~=  0.6 ns <= __free_pages_ok
> >   0.59 % ~=  0.5 ns <= get_pfnblock_flags_mask
> >   0.57 % ~=  0.5 ns <= free_one_page
> >   0.46 % ~=  0.4 ns <= __mod_zone_page_state
> >   0.36 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __rmqueue
> >   0.34 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __alloc_pages_nodemask
> >   0.31 % ~=  0.3 ns <= __zone_watermark_ok
> >   0.21 % ~=  0.2 ns <= next_zones_zonelist
> >   0.16 % ~=  0.1 ns <= __inc_zone_state
> >   0.12 % ~=  0.1 ns <= zone_statistics
> >   0.02 % ~=  0.0 ns <= mod_zone_page_state
> >  Sum: 20.83 % => calc: 17.2 ns (sum: 17.2 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: kmem_cache/SLUB allocator functions ::
> >   4.99 % ~=  4.1 ns <= kmem_cache_alloc_bulk
> >   2.87 % ~=  2.4 ns <= kmem_cache_free_bulk
> >   0.24 % ~=  0.2 ns <= ___slab_alloc
> >   0.23 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __slab_free
> >   0.21 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.54
> >   0.17 % ~=  0.1 ns <= cmpxchg_double_slab.isra.65
> >   0.07 % ~=  0.1 ns <= put_cpu_partial
> >   0.04 % ~=  0.0 ns <= unfreeze_partials.isra.71
> >   0.03 % ~=  0.0 ns <= get_partial_node.isra.72
> >  Sum:  8.85 % => calc: 7.3 ns (sum: 7.3 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> >  Group-report: related to pattern "skb" ::
> >  17.92 % ~= 14.8 ns <= __napi_alloc_skb   <== 80% memset(0) / rep stos
> >   3.29 % ~=  2.7 ns <= skb_release_data
> >   2.20 % ~=  1.8 ns <= napi_consume_skb
> >   1.86 % ~=  1.5 ns <= skb_release_head_state
> >   1.20 % ~=  1.0 ns <= skb_put
> >   1.14 % ~=  0.9 ns <= skb_release_all
> >   0.02 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __kfree_skb_flush
> >  Sum: 27.63 % => calc: 22.9 ns (sum: 22.9 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: Core network-stack functions ::
> >   0.36 % ~=  0.3 ns <= net_rx_action
> >   0.17 % ~=  0.1 ns <= __do_softirq
> >   0.02 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __raise_softirq_irqoff
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= run_ksoftirqd
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= run_timer_softirq
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= ksoftirqd_should_run
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= raise_softirq
> >  Sum:  0.56 % => calc: 0.5 ns (sum: 0.5 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: GRO network-stack functions ::
> >  Sum:  0.00 % => calc: 0.0 ns (sum: 0.0 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> > Group-report: related to pattern "spin_.*lock|mutex" ::
> >   0.58 % ~=  0.5 ns <= _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> >   0.52 % ~=  0.4 ns <= _raw_spin_lock
> >   0.12 % ~=  0.1 ns <= _raw_spin_unlock
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __mutex_lock_slowpath
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= _raw_spin_lock_irq
> >  Sum:  1.23 % => calc: 1.0 ns (sum: 1.0 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> >  Negative Report: functions NOT included in group reports::
> >   0.22 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __list_del_entry
> >   0.20 % ~=  0.2 ns <= __list_add
> >   0.07 % ~=  0.1 ns <= list_del
> >   0.05 % ~=  0.0 ns <= native_sched_clock
> >   0.04 % ~=  0.0 ns <= irqtime_account_irq
> >   0.02 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rcu_bh_qs
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= task_tick_fair
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= net_rps_action_and_irq_enable.isra.112
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= perf_event_task_tick
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= apic_timer_interrupt
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= lapic_next_deadline
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rcu_check_callbacks
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= smpboot_thread_fn
> >   0.01 % ~=  0.0 ns <= irqtime_account_process_tick.isra.3
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= intel_bts_enable_local
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= kthread_should_park
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= native_apic_mem_write
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= hrtimer_forward
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= get_work_pool
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= cpu_startup_entry
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= acct_account_cputime
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= set_next_entity
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= worker_thread
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= dbs_timer_handler
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= delay_tsc
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= idle_cpu
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= timerqueue_add
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= hrtimer_interrupt
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= dbs_work_handler
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= dequeue_entity
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_cfs_shares
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_fast_timekeeper
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= smp_trace_apic_timer_interrupt
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __update_cpu_load
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= cpu_needs_another_gp
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= ret_from_intr
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __intel_pmu_enable_all
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= trigger_load_balance
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __schedule
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= nsecs_to_jiffies64
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= account_entity_dequeue
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= worker_enter_idle
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __hrtimer_get_next_event
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rcu_irq_exit
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rb_erase
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __intel_pmu_disable_all
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= tick_sched_do_timer
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= cpuacct_account_field
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_wall_time
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= notifier_call_chain
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= timekeeping_update
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= ktime_get_update_offsets_now
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rb_next
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= rcu_all_qs
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= x86_pmu_disable
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= _cond_resched
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __rcu_read_lock
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __local_bh_enable
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_cpu_load_active
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= x86_pmu_enable
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= insert_work
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= ktime_get
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __usecs_to_jiffies
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __acct_update_integrals
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= scheduler_tick
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_vsyscall
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= memcpy_erms
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= get_cpu_idle_time_us
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= sched_clock_cpu
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= tick_do_update_jiffies64
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= hrtimer_active
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= profile_tick
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __hrtimer_run_queues
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= kthread_should_stop
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= run_posix_cpu_timers
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= read_tsc
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= __remove_hrtimer
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= calc_global_load_tick
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= hrtimer_run_queues
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= irq_work_tick
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= cpuacct_charge
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= clockevents_program_event
> >   0.00 % ~=  0.0 ns <= update_blocked_averages
> >  Sum:  0.68 % => calc: 0.6 ns (sum: 0.6 ns) => Total: 82.7 ns
> >
> >