Hi Willy, On mer., févr. 17 2016, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi Gregory, > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:33:35PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> Hello, >> >> A few weeks ago I sent a proposal for a API set for HW Buffer >> management, to have a better view of the motivation for this API see >> the cover letter of this proposal: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2125152 >> >> Since this version I took into account the review from Florian: >> - The hardware buffer management helpers are no more built by default >> and now depend on a hidden config symbol which has to be selected >> by the driver if needed >> - The hwbm_pool_refill() and hwbm_pool_add() now receive a gfp_t as >> argument allowing the caller to specify the flag it needs. >> - buf_num is now tested to ensure there is no wrapping >> - A spinlock has been added to protect the hwbm_pool_add() function in >> SMP or irq context. >> >> I also used pr_warn instead of pr_debug in case of errors. >> >> I fixed the mvneta implementation by returning the buffer to the pool >> at various place instead of ignoring it. >> >> About the series itself I tried to make this series easier to merge: >> - Squashed "bus: mvenus-mbus: Fix size test for >> mvebu_mbus_get_dram_win_info" into bus: mvebu-mbus: provide api for >> obtaining IO and DRAM window information. >> - Added my signed-otf-by on all the patches as submitter of the series. >> - Renamed the dts patches with the pattern "ARM: dts: platform:" >> - Removed the patch "ARM: mvebu: enable SRAM support in >> mvebu_v7_defconfig" of this series and already applied it >> - Rodified the order of the patches. >> >> In order to ease the test the branch mvneta-BM-framework-v2 is >> available at g...@github.com:MISL-EBU-System-SW/mainline-public.git. > > Well, I tested this patch series on top of latest master (from today) > on my fresh new clearfog board. I compared carefully with and without > the patchset. My workload was haproxy receiving connections and forwarding > them to my PC via the same port. I tested both with short connections > (HTTP GET of an empty file) and long ones (1 MB or more). No trouble > was detected at all, which is pretty good. I noticed a very tiny > performance drop which is more noticeable on short connections (high > packet rates), my forwarded connection rate went down from 17500/s to > 17300/s. But I have not checked yet what can be tuned when using the > BM, nor did I compare CPU usage. I remember having run some tests in > the past, I guess it was on the XP-GP board, and noticed that the BM > could save a significant amount of CPU and improve cache efficiency, > so if this is the case here, we don't really care about a possible 1% > performance drop. > > I'll try to provide more results as time permits. > > In the mean time if you want (or plan to submit a next batch), feel > free to add a Tested-by: Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>. Great! thanks for testing. Gregory > > cheers, > Willy > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com