Hi Govind,

As well as removing the prefetches, you've also removed the per packet call to 
acl_fa_find_session_with_hash(). So IIUC you've removed the per-packet session 
lookup and instead re-use the lookup of packet 0 each time. that'll make things 
quicker but it's not functionally correct.

/neale

On 27/05/2020 23:51, "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of Andrew Yourtchenko" 
<vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of ayour...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Govind,

    1) According to Jenkins, this patch permits some of the packets that
    should be denied, hence JJB voted "-1".

    2) If you suspect merely the prefetches are the issue, just commenting
    out the body of prefetch_session_entry() in the original code should
    turn it into a no-op that doesn't break anything.

    Hard to say anything else given the functionality is not correct.

    In general - ensure you run "EXTENDED_TESTS=y TEST=acl* make test" as
    a sanity check before extensive perf-tests. It's not a 100% guarantee
    but it does catch a few naughty cases.

    Also - take a look at f1cd92d8d9, which got about 30% improvement back
    in the day, and is the source of much of the trickiness in that node.

    --a


    On 5/27/20, Govindarajan Mohandoss <govindarajan.mohand...@arm.com> wrote:
    > Hi Andrew,
    >
    >   While profiling the ACL plugin node using perf tool in ARM Neoverse
    > platform, Bihash related prefetches were shown as bottleneck.
    >
    > Performance improvement is seen in ARM N1, TX2 and Intel Skylake servers
    > after removing those prefetches. Testing is done with Ingress ACL/IPv4
    > forwarding in both SF and SL modes.
    >
    > As the code change is common for Ingress/Egress ACL for both IPv4 and 
IPv6,
    > performance improvement is expected for those cases also.
    >
    > Following are the test results for Ingress ACL / IPv4 / 1 core / 64B @ MRR
    > in ARM N1, TX2 and Intel Skylake servers:
    >
    >
    >
    > Legend:
    >
    > =======
    >
    > N1 - ARM Neoverse
    >
    > TX2 - ARM Thunder X2
    >
    > SKX - Intel Skylake
    >
    > SL: % imp - Performance improvement in stateless mode
    >
    > SF: % imp - Performance improvement in stateful mode
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > SKX
    > N1
    > TX2
    > Num Rules
    > Matching Rules
    > SL: Avg % imp
    > SF: Avg % imp
    > SL: % imp
    > SF: % imp
    > SL: % imp
    > SF: % imp
    > 1
    > 1
    > 0.99
    > 12.09
    > 8.38
    > 10.41
    > 4.48
    > 4.63
    > 50
    > 1 (50th)
    > 0.79
    > 9.63
    > 8.76
    > 10.06
    > 5.32
    > 4.63
    > 100
    > 1 (100th)
    > 4.34
    > 10.75
    > 8.60
    > 10.06
    > 6.98
    > 4.63
    > 1000
    > 1(1000th)
    > 4.18
    > 13.06
    > 8.61
    > 11.14
    > 6.17
    > 5.58
    > 100
    > 100
    > 3.70
    > 11.70
    > 6.65
    > 14
    > 2.82
    > 6.53
    > 1000
    > 1000
    > 1.84
    > 15.96
    > 5.52
    > 27.72
    > 4.72
    > 8.69
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Please find the patch here: https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/27167
    >
    >
    >
    > I ran per patch regression on ARM Taishan server in CSIT lab. Following 
are
    > the results for Stateless and Stateful modes:
    >
    > 1.  perftest-3n-tsh acl_statelessAND1cAND64b:
    >
    >
    > 
https://jenkins.fd.io/job/vpp-csit-verify-perf-master-3n-tsh/23/consoleFull
    >
    >      In the log, I can see the comparative numbers between parent and
    > current (my patch) for 45 test cases.
    >
    >      I searched for "Difference of averages relative to parent" in the 
log -
    >  41/45 test cases have shown around 4% improvement with the patch. Rest of
    > the 4 test cases stayed neutral.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2. perftest-3n-tsh acl_statefulAND1cAND64b:
    >
    >     https://jenkins.fd.io/job/vpp-csit-verify-perf-master-3n-tsh/25/
    >
    >     Performance improvement is seen in all 36 test cases.
    >
    >
    >
    > Please provide your comments.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Govind
    >
    >
    >

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#16545): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16545
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/74507621/21656
Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to