On 1 Jul 2021, at 19:24, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 5:19 PM >> To: Van Haaren, Harry <[email protected]> >> Cc: Amber, Kumar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Flavio Leitner <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [v4 02/12] dpif-netdev: Add auto validation function >> for >> miniflow extract >> >> >> >> On 29 Jun 2021, at 13:05, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >> >>> Hi Eelco, >>> >>> Would you describe the actual test being run below? >>> >>> I'm having a hard time figuring out what the actual datapath packet flow >>> is. It >> seems strange >>> that MFEX optimizations are affected by flow-count, that doesn't really >>> logically >> make sense. >>> Hence, some more understanding on what the test setup is may help. >>> >>> To remove complexity & noise from the setup: does running a simple >>> Phy-to-Phy >> test with L2 bridging >>> cause any perf degradation? If so, please describe that exact setup and >>> I'll try to >> reproduce/replicate results here. >>> >> >> I did run some more tests both PVP as well as a physical port loopback, i.e. >> same >> port in and out (so without the VM). >> Here are some results (I did 5 runs and took the average, and mention the RS >> deviation for all runs to make sure it not that): > > Ah, thanks for checking noisiness of data, indeed that was going to be my > next question! > > >> +-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+----- >> ---+---------+--------+-----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ >> | P (loopback) | | Packet size | | | >> | | | | | >> | | | | | | >> | | Number of flows | 64 | | 128 | >> | 256 | | 512 | >> | 768 | | 1024 | | 1514 | | >> | without vs with patch | 1000 | -81863 | -0.98% | -134888 | >> -1.55% | - >> 66261 | -0.80% | -110552 | -1.35% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | >> 0.00% | >> | RS Deviation | | | 0.09% | | >> 0.46% | | 0.09% | | >> 0.06% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | >> | without vs with patch | 10000 | -58903 | -0.82% | -52742 | >> -0.73% | - >> 46875 | -0.64% | -49871 | -0.68% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | >> 0.00% | >> | RS Deviation | | | 0.24% | | >> 0.13% | | 0.13% | | >> 0.10% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | | 0.00% | >> +-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+----- >> ---+---------+--------+-----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ > > Thanks, so I'm reading that as showing 64 bytes negative 1%, 128 byte pkts > -2%. > Small deltas, but in the wrong direction, thanks for reporting. > >> I’ll share the google sheet with you directly as it also has the config, and >> PVP results. > > I can't actually access that doc, sorry. Results above are enough to go by > for now :) It’s attached. > We can investigate if there's any optimizations to be done to improve the > scalar DPIF > enabling of the miniflow extract func ptr, but I'm not sure there is. > > If we cannot improve the perf data from above, there is an option to not > enable the scalar > DPIF with the AVX512 MFEX optimizations. (Logic being if AVX512 is present, > running both > the DPIF + MFEX makes sense). What do you think? This is on a system without AVX512 support, so all is disabled. The “without patch” has both the new AVX patches removed (mfex and dpif framework). > >> //Eelco > > Note I'm out of office tomorrow Friday 2nd July, so expect replies early next > week. > Regards, -Harry _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
