Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC 3/4] dpif-netdev: Use way-associative cache

[Wang, Yipeng1]

Thanks for the comments. Reply inlined:

>-Original Message-
>From: Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 12:56 PM
>To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; d...@openvswitch.org; 
>jan.scheur...@ericsson.com
>Cc: Tai, Charlie <charlie@intel.com>
>Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [RFC 3/4] dpif-netdev: Use way-associative cache
>
>Hi Yipeng,
>
>Thanks for the patch. Some high level questions/comments.
>
>(1)  Am I right in understanding that this patch *only* introduces a new cache 
>approach in to DFC to reduce the collisions?
>
[Wang, Yipeng] Yes, including set-associative structure and the signatures.

>(2)  Why the number of entries per Bucket is set to '8'?  With this each 
>dfc_bucket  size is 80 bytes (16 + 64).
>If the number of entries set to '6', the dfc_bucket size will be 60 
> bytes and can fit in to a cache line.
>I assume 'DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET' isn't a random picked number. Was it 
> picked due to any benchmarks?
>
[Wang, Yipeng] Next commit (4/4) will solve this issue. Without 4/4,  I agree 
that cache alignment is important and 6 makes more sense.

>(3) A 2 byte signature is introduced in a bucket and is used to insert or 
>retrieve flows in to the bucket.
>3a. Due to the introduction of 2 byte signature the size of dfc_cache 
> increased by 2MB per PMD thread.
[Wang, Yipeng] Yes, the next commit will alleviate the memory issue.

>3b. Every time we insert or retrieve a flow, we have to match the 
> packet signature(upper 16 bit RSS hash) with each entry of the
>bucket. Wondering if that slow down the operations?
[Wang, Yipeng] Yes, I saw 1-4%  throughput penalty. However, the cache 
collision reduced a lot and performance generally improved for most cases.
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-January/343029.html here I 
shown some results.  Note that if there is only one rule, then signature does 
not
help but this case is less realistic.
>
>(4)  The number of buckets depends on the number of entries per bucket.  Which 
>of this plays an important role in reducing the
>collisions?
>i.e Would higher number of entries per bucket reduce the collisions?
>
[Wang, Yipeng] Generally yes, but there will be diminishing returns on the 
collision rate reduction with more than 8 entries/bucket. Also, comparing 
signatures will be more costly with more entries each bucket. 

>(5) What is the performance delta observed with this new Cache implementation 
>over 1/4 approach?
>
[Wang, Yipeng]  Please check out these numbers I generated before: 
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-January/343029.html
>Some more minor comments below.
>
>>This commit uses a way-associative cache (CD) rather than a simple single
>>entry hash table for DFC. Experiments show that this design generally has
>>much higher hit rate.
>>
>>@@ -774,11 +777,13 @@ emc_cache_init(struct emc_cache *emc)  static void
>>dfc_cache_init(struct dfc_cache *flow_cache)  {
>>-int i;
>>+int i, j;
>>
>> emc_cache_init(_cache->emc_cache);
>>-for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flow_cache->entries); i++) {
>>-flow_cache->entries[i].flow = NULL;
>>+for (i = 0; i < DFC_BUCKET_CNT; i++) {
>>+for (j = 0; j < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; j++) {
>>+flow_cache->buckets[i].flow[j] = NULL;
>
>[BHANU] How about initializing the signature?
>
[Wang, Yipeng] Thanks for pointing out. Functionally it should be fine since I 
use pointer to check entry valid or not anyway. But I will do in next version.

>> }
>> }
>>@@ -2288,10 +2302,25 @@ dfc_insert(struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,
>>struct dp_netdev_flow *flow)  {
>> struct dfc_cache *cache = >flow_cache;
>>-struct dfc_entry *current_entry;
>>
>>-current_entry = dfc_entry_get(cache, key->hash);
>>-dfc_change_entry(current_entry, flow);
>>+struct dfc_bucket *bucket = >buckets[key->hash & DFC_MASK];
>>+uint16_t sig = key->hash >> 16;
>
>[BHANU]  Am I right in assuming the below logic is to replace an already 
>existing entry in bucket?
[Wang, Yipeng] Yes, to overwrite an entry with same signature.
>
>>+for (int i = 0; i < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; i++) {
>>+if(bucket->sig[i] == sig) {
>>+dfc_change_entry(bucket, i, flow);
>>+return;
>>+}
>>+}
>
>[BHANU] The below happens if inserting in to empty bucket?
>
[Wang, Yipeng] Yes, if there is empty entry we insert there.

>+for (int i = 0; i < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; i++) {
>+if(bucket->flow[i] == NULL) {
>+bucket->sig[i] = sig;
>+dfc_change_entry(bucket, i, flow);
>+return;
>+}
>+}

Thanks.
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC 3/4] dpif-netdev: Use way-associative cache

[Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash]

Hi Yipeng,

Thanks for the patch. Some high level questions/comments.

(1)  Am I right in understanding that this patch *only* introduces a new cache 
approach in to DFC to reduce the collisions?

(2)  Why the number of entries per Bucket is set to '8'?  With this each 
dfc_bucket  size is 80 bytes (16 + 64).
If the number of entries set to '6', the dfc_bucket size will be 60 
bytes and can fit in to a cache line.
I assume 'DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET' isn't a random picked number. Was it 
picked due to any benchmarks?

(3) A 2 byte signature is introduced in a bucket and is used to insert or 
retrieve flows in to the bucket.
3a. Due to the introduction of 2 byte signature the size of dfc_cache 
increased by 2MB per PMD thread.
3b. Every time we insert or retrieve a flow, we have to match the 
packet signature(upper 16 bit RSS hash) with each entry of the bucket. 
Wondering if that slow down the operations?

(4)  The number of buckets depends on the number of entries per bucket.  Which 
of this plays an important role in reducing the collisions?
i.e Would higher number of entries per bucket reduce the collisions?

(5) What is the performance delta observed with this new Cache implementation 
over 1/4 approach?

Some more minor comments below.

>This commit uses a way-associative cache (CD) rather than a simple single
>entry hash table for DFC. Experiments show that this design generally has
>much higher hit rate.
>
>Since miss is much costly than hit, a CD-like structure that improves hit rate
>should help in general.
>
>Signed-off-by: Yipeng Wang 
>---
> lib/dpif-netdev.c | 107 +++--
>-
> 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c index 3e87992..50a1d25
>100644
>--- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>+++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>@@ -150,8 +150,10 @@ struct netdev_flow_key {
>  */
>
> #define DFC_MASK_LEN 20
>+#define DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET 8
> #define DFC_ENTRIES (1u << DFC_MASK_LEN) -#define DFC_MASK
>(DFC_ENTRIES - 1)
>+#define DFC_BUCKET_CNT (DFC_ENTRIES / DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET)
>#define
>+DFC_MASK (DFC_BUCKET_CNT - 1)
> #define EMC_MASK_LEN 14
> #define EMC_ENTRIES (1u << EMC_MASK_LEN)  #define EMC_MASK
>(EMC_ENTRIES - 1) @@ -171,13 +173,14 @@ struct emc_cache {
> int sweep_idx;
> };
>
>-struct dfc_entry {
>-struct dp_netdev_flow *flow;
>+struct dfc_bucket {
>+uint16_t sig[DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET];
>+struct dp_netdev_flow *flow[DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET];
> };
>
> struct dfc_cache {
> struct emc_cache emc_cache;
>-struct dfc_entry entries[DFC_ENTRIES];
>+struct dfc_bucket buckets[DFC_BUCKET_CNT];
> int sweep_idx;
> };
>
>@@ -749,9 +752,9 @@ dpif_netdev_xps_revalidate_pmd(const struct
>dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,  static int dpif_netdev_xps_get_tx_qid(const
>struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,
>   struct tx_port *tx);
>
>-static inline bool dfc_entry_alive(struct dfc_entry *ce);
>+static inline bool dfc_entry_alive(struct dp_netdev_flow *flow);
> static void emc_clear_entry(struct emc_entry *ce); -static void
>dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_entry *ce);
>+static void dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_bucket *b, int idx);
>
> static void dp_netdev_request_reconfigure(struct dp_netdev *dp);
>
>@@ -774,11 +777,13 @@ emc_cache_init(struct emc_cache *emc)  static void
>dfc_cache_init(struct dfc_cache *flow_cache)  {
>-int i;
>+int i, j;
>
> emc_cache_init(_cache->emc_cache);
>-for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flow_cache->entries); i++) {
>-flow_cache->entries[i].flow = NULL;
>+for (i = 0; i < DFC_BUCKET_CNT; i++) {
>+for (j = 0; j < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; j++) {
>+flow_cache->buckets[i].flow[j] = NULL;

[BHANU] How about initializing the signature?

>+}
> }
> flow_cache->sweep_idx = 0;
> }
>@@ -796,10 +801,12 @@ emc_cache_uninit(struct emc_cache *emc)  static
>void  dfc_cache_uninit(struct dfc_cache *flow_cache)  {
>-int i;
>+int i, j;
>
>-for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flow_cache->entries); i++) {
>-dfc_clear_entry(_cache->entries[i]);
>+for (i = 0; i < DFC_BUCKET_CNT; i++) {
>+for (j = 0; j < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; j++) {
>+dfc_clear_entry(&(flow_cache->buckets[i]), j);
>+}
> }
> emc_cache_uninit(_cache->emc_cache);
> }
>@@ -2245,39 +2252,46 @@ emc_lookup(struct emc_cache *emc, const struct
>netdev_flow_key *key)
> return NULL;
> }
>
>-static inline struct dfc_entry *
>+static inline struct dp_netdev_flow *
> dfc_entry_get(struct dfc_cache *cache, const uint32_t hash)  {
>-return >entries[hash & DFC_MASK];
>+struct dfc_bucket *bucket = >buckets[hash & DFC_MASK];
>+uint16_t sig = hash >> 16;
>+for (int i = 0; i < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; i++) {
>+if(bucket->sig[i] == sig) {
>+return bucket->flow[i];
>+}
>+}
>+return NULL;
> }
>
> static inline bool

[ovs-dev] [RFC 3/4] dpif-netdev: Use way-associative cache

[Yipeng Wang]

This commit uses a way-associative cache (CD) rather than a simple
single entry hash table for DFC. Experiments show that this design
generally has much higher hit rate.

Since miss is much costly than hit, a CD-like structure that improves
hit rate should help in general.

Signed-off-by: Yipeng Wang 
---
 lib/dpif-netdev.c | 107 +++---
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
index 3e87992..50a1d25 100644
--- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
+++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
@@ -150,8 +150,10 @@ struct netdev_flow_key {
  */
 
 #define DFC_MASK_LEN 20
+#define DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET 8
 #define DFC_ENTRIES (1u << DFC_MASK_LEN)
-#define DFC_MASK (DFC_ENTRIES - 1)
+#define DFC_BUCKET_CNT (DFC_ENTRIES / DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET)
+#define DFC_MASK (DFC_BUCKET_CNT - 1)
 #define EMC_MASK_LEN 14
 #define EMC_ENTRIES (1u << EMC_MASK_LEN)
 #define EMC_MASK (EMC_ENTRIES - 1)
@@ -171,13 +173,14 @@ struct emc_cache {
 int sweep_idx;
 };
 
-struct dfc_entry {
-struct dp_netdev_flow *flow;
+struct dfc_bucket {
+uint16_t sig[DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET];
+struct dp_netdev_flow *flow[DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET];
 };
 
 struct dfc_cache {
 struct emc_cache emc_cache;
-struct dfc_entry entries[DFC_ENTRIES];
+struct dfc_bucket buckets[DFC_BUCKET_CNT];
 int sweep_idx;
 };
 
@@ -749,9 +752,9 @@ dpif_netdev_xps_revalidate_pmd(const struct 
dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,
 static int dpif_netdev_xps_get_tx_qid(const struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,
   struct tx_port *tx);
 
-static inline bool dfc_entry_alive(struct dfc_entry *ce);
+static inline bool dfc_entry_alive(struct dp_netdev_flow *flow);
 static void emc_clear_entry(struct emc_entry *ce);
-static void dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_entry *ce);
+static void dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_bucket *b, int idx);
 
 static void dp_netdev_request_reconfigure(struct dp_netdev *dp);
 
@@ -774,11 +777,13 @@ emc_cache_init(struct emc_cache *emc)
 static void
 dfc_cache_init(struct dfc_cache *flow_cache)
 {
-int i;
+int i, j;
 
 emc_cache_init(_cache->emc_cache);
-for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flow_cache->entries); i++) {
-flow_cache->entries[i].flow = NULL;
+for (i = 0; i < DFC_BUCKET_CNT; i++) {
+for (j = 0; j < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; j++) {
+flow_cache->buckets[i].flow[j] = NULL;
+}
 }
 flow_cache->sweep_idx = 0;
 }
@@ -796,10 +801,12 @@ emc_cache_uninit(struct emc_cache *emc)
 static void
 dfc_cache_uninit(struct dfc_cache *flow_cache)
 {
-int i;
+int i, j;
 
-for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flow_cache->entries); i++) {
-dfc_clear_entry(_cache->entries[i]);
+for (i = 0; i < DFC_BUCKET_CNT; i++) {
+for (j = 0; j < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; j++) {
+dfc_clear_entry(&(flow_cache->buckets[i]), j);
+}
 }
 emc_cache_uninit(_cache->emc_cache);
 }
@@ -2245,39 +2252,46 @@ emc_lookup(struct emc_cache *emc, const struct 
netdev_flow_key *key)
 return NULL;
 }
 
-static inline struct dfc_entry *
+static inline struct dp_netdev_flow *
 dfc_entry_get(struct dfc_cache *cache, const uint32_t hash)
 {
-return >entries[hash & DFC_MASK];
+struct dfc_bucket *bucket = >buckets[hash & DFC_MASK];
+uint16_t sig = hash >> 16;
+for (int i = 0; i < DFC_ENTRY_PER_BUCKET; i++) {
+if(bucket->sig[i] == sig) {
+return bucket->flow[i];
+}
+}
+return NULL;
 }
 
 static inline bool
-dfc_entry_alive(struct dfc_entry *ce)
+dfc_entry_alive(struct dp_netdev_flow *flow)
 {
-return ce->flow && !ce->flow->dead;
+return flow && !flow->dead;
 }
 
 static void
-dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_entry *ce)
+dfc_clear_entry(struct dfc_bucket *b, int idx)
 {
-if (ce->flow) {
-dp_netdev_flow_unref(ce->flow);
-ce->flow = NULL;
+if (b->flow[idx]) {
+dp_netdev_flow_unref(b->flow[idx]);
+b->flow[idx] = NULL;
 }
 }
 
 static inline void
-dfc_change_entry(struct dfc_entry *ce, struct dp_netdev_flow *flow)
+dfc_change_entry(struct dfc_bucket *b, int idx, struct dp_netdev_flow *flow)
 {
-if (ce->flow != flow) {
-if (ce->flow) {
-dp_netdev_flow_unref(ce->flow);
+if (b->flow[idx] != flow) {
+if (b->flow[idx]) {
+dp_netdev_flow_unref(b->flow[idx]);
 }
 
 if (dp_netdev_flow_ref(flow)) {
-ce->flow = flow;
+b->flow[idx] = flow;
 } else {
-ce->flow = NULL;
+b->flow[idx] = NULL;
 }
 }
 }
@@ -2288,10 +2302,25 @@ dfc_insert(struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread *pmd,
struct dp_netdev_flow *flow)
 {
 struct dfc_cache *cache = >flow_cache;
-struct dfc_entry *current_entry;
 
-current_entry = dfc_entry_get(cache, key->hash);
-dfc_change_entry(current_entry, flow);
+struct dfc_bucket *bucket = >buckets[key->hash & DFC_MASK];
+uint16_t sig