Hi Jerin, Any idea why lttng performance is so poor? I would have naturally gone there to benefit from the existing toolchain.
Have you looked at the FD.io logging/tracing infrastructure for inspiration? https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/elog Ray K On 13/01/2020 10:40, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to add tracing support for DPDK. > I am planning to add this support in v20.05 release. > > This RFC attempts to get feedback from the community on > > a) Tracing Use cases. > b) Tracing Requirements. > b) Implementation choices. > c) Trace format. > > Use-cases > --------- > - Most of the cases, The DPDK provider will not have access to the DPDK > customer applications. > To debug/analyze the slow path and fast path DPDK API usage from the field, > we need to have integrated trace support in DPDK. > > - Need a low overhead Fast path multi-core PMD driver debugging/analysis > infrastructure in DPDK to fix the functional and performance issue(s) of PMD. > > - Post trace analysis tools can provide various status across the system such > as cpu_idle() using the timestamp added in the trace. > > > Requirements: > ------------- > - Support for Linux, FreeBSD and Windows OS > - Open trace format > - Multi-platform Open source trace viewer > - Absolute low overhead trace API for DPDK fast path tracing/debugging. > - Dynamic enable/disable of trace events > > > To enable trace support in DPDK, following items need to work out: > > a) Add the DPDK trace points in the DPDK source code. > > - This includes updating DPDK functions such as, > rte_eth_dev_configure(), rte_eth_dev_start(), rte_eth_dev_rx_burst() to emit > the trace. > > b) Choosing suitable serialization-format > > - Common Trace Format, CTF, is an open format and language to describe trace > formats. > This enables tool reuse, of which line-textual (babeltrace) and > graphical (TraceCompass) variants already exist. > > CTF should look familiar to C programmers but adds stronger typing. > See CTF - A Flexible, High-performance Binary Trace Format. > > https://diamon.org/ctf/ > > c) Writing the on-target serialization code, > > See the section below.(Lttng CTF trace emitter vs DPDK specific CTF trace > emitter) > > d) Deciding on and writing the I/O transport mechanics, > > For performance reasons, it should be backed by a huge-page and write to file > IO. > > e) Writing the PC-side deserializer/parser, > > Both the babletrace(CLI tool) and Trace Compass(GUI tool) support CTF. > See: > https://lttng.org/viewers/ > > f) Writing tools for filtering and presentation. > > See item (e) > > > Lttng CTF trace emitter vs DPDK specific CTF trace emitter > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I have written a performance evaluation application to measure the overhead > of Lttng CTF emitter(The fastpath infrastructure used by https://lttng.org/ > library to emit the trace) > > https://github.com/jerinjacobk/lttng-overhead > https://github.com/jerinjacobk/lttng-overhead/blob/master/README > > I could improve the performance by 30% by adding the "DPDK" > based plugin for get_clock() and get_cpu(), > Here are the performance numbers after adding the plugin on > x86 and various arm64 board that I have access to, > > On high-end x86, it comes around 236 cycles/~100ns @ 2.4GHz (See the last > line in the log(ZERO_ARG)) > On arm64, it varies from 312 cycles to 1100 cycles(based on the class of CPU). > In short, Based on the "IPC capabilities", The cost would be around 100ns to > 400ns > for single void trace(a trace without any argument) > > > [lttng-overhead-x86] $ sudo ./calibrate/build/app/calibrate -c 0xc0 > make: Entering directory '/export/lttng-overhead-x86/calibrate' > make: Leaving directory '/export/lttng-overhead-x86/calibrate' > EAL: Detected 56 lcore(s) > EAL: Detected 2 NUMA nodes > EAL: Multi-process socket /var/run/dpdk/rte/mp_socket > EAL: Selected IOVA mode 'PA' > EAL: Probing VFIO support... > EAL: PCI device 0000:01:00.0 on NUMA socket 0 > EAL: probe driver: 8086:1521 net_e1000_igb > EAL: PCI device 0000:01:00.1 on NUMA socket 0 > EAL: probe driver: 8086:1521 net_e1000_igb > CPU Timer freq is 2600.000000MHz > NOP: cycles=0.194834 ns=0.074936 > GET_CLOCK: cycles=47.854658 ns=18.405638 > GET_CPU: cycles=30.995892 ns=11.921497 > ZERO_ARG: cycles=236.945113 ns=91.132736 > > > We will have only 16.75ns to process 59.2 mpps(40Gbps), So IMO, Lttng CTF > emitter > may not fit the DPDK fast path purpose due to the cost associated with > generic Lttng features. > > One option could be to have, native CTF emitter in EAL/DPDK to emit the > trace in a hugepage. I think it would be a handful of cycles if we limit the > features > to the requirements above: > > The upside of using Lttng CTF emitter: > a) No need to write a new CTF trace emitter(the item (c)) > > The downside of Lttng CTF emitter(the item (c)) > a) performance issue(See above) > b) Lack of Windows OS support. It looks like, it has basic FreeBSD support. > c) dpdk library dependency to lttng for trace. > > So, Probably it good to have native CTF emitter in DPDK and reuse all > open-source trace viewer(babeltrace and TraceCompass) and format(CTF) > infrastructure. > I think, it would be best of both world. > > Any thoughts on this subject? Based on the community feedback, I can work on > the patch for v20.05. >