lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 03/21] ethtool, stats: introduce standard XDP statistics
Date

On 04/08/2021 18.44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:17:56 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
>> On 8/4/21 6:36 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have data that shows bumping a properly implemented counter
>> causes a noticeable performance degradation and if so by how much? You
>> mention 'yet another cacheline' but collecting stats on stack and
>> incrementing the driver structs at the end of the napi loop should not
>> have a huge impact versus the value the stats provide.
>
> Not sure, maybe Jesper has some numbers. Maybe Intel folks do?

(sorry, behind on emails after vacation ... just partly answering inside
this thread, not checking if you did a smart counter impl.).

I don't have exact numbers, but I hope Magnus (Intel) would be motivated
to validate performance degradation from this patchset. As I know Intel
is hunting the DPDK numbers with AF_XDP-zc, where every last cycle *do*
count.

My experience is that counters can easily hurt performance, without the
developers noticing the small degradation's. As Ahern sketch out above
(stats on stack + end of napi loop update), I do believe that a smart
counter implementation is possible to hide this overhead (hopefully
completely in the CPUs pipeline slots).

I do highly appreciate the effort to standardize the XDP stats!
So, I do hope this can somehow move forward.

--Jesper

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-08-12 14:21    [W:0.065 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site