Re: [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements ***

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiles, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:05 PM
To: Carrillo, Erik G <redacted>
Cc: rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements ***

quoted

On Aug 23, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Carrillo, Erik G [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiles, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:50 AM
To: Carrillo, Erik G <redacted>
Cc: rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements
***

quoted

On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Carrillo, Erik G
[off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiles, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Carrillo, Erik G <redacted>
Cc: rsanford@akamai.com; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] *** timer library enhancements
***

quoted

On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Gabriel Carrillo
[off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

In the current implementation of the DPDK timer library, timers
can be created and set to be handled by a target lcore by adding
it to a skiplist that corresponds to that lcore.  However, if an
application enables multiple lcores, and each of these lcores
repeatedly attempts to install timers on the same target lcore,
overall application throughput will be reduced as all lcores
contend to acquire the lock guarding the single skiplist of pending

timers.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

This patchset addresses this scenario by adding an array of
skiplists to each lcore's priv_timer struct, such that when lcore
i installs a timer on lcore k, the timer will be added to the ith
skiplist for lcore k.  If lcore j installs a timer on lcore k
simultaneously, lcores i and j can both proceed since they will be
acquiring different locks for different lists.

When lcore k processes its pending timers, it will traverse each
skiplist in its array and acquire a skiplist's lock while a run
list is broken out; meanwhile, all other lists can continue to be

modified.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Then, all run lists for lcore k are collected and traversed
together so timers are executed in their global order.

What is the performance and/or latency added to the timeout now?

I worry about the case when just about all of the cores are
enabled, which could be as high was 128 or more now.

There is a case in the timer_perf_autotest that runs
rte_timer_manage

with zero timers that can give a sense of the added latency.   When run

with

quoted

quoted

one lcore, it completes in around 25 cycles.  When run with 43 lcores
(the highest I have access to at the moment), rte_timer_mange
completes in around 155 cycles.  So it looks like each added lcore
adds around 3 cycles of overhead for checking empty lists in my testing.

Does this mean we have only 25 cycles on the current design or is the
25 cycles for the new design?

Both - when run with one lcore, the new design becomes equivalent to the

original one.  I tested the current design to confirm.

Good thanks

quoted

quoted

If for the new design, then what is the old design cost compared to
the new cost.

I also think we need the call to a timer function in the calculation,
just to make sure we have at least one timer in the list and we
account for any short cuts in the code for no timers active.

Looking at the numbers for non-empty lists in timer_perf_autotest, the

overhead appears to fall away.  Here are some representative runs for
timer_perf_autotest:

quoted

43 lcores enabled, installing 1M timers on an lcore and processing them

with current design:

quoted

<...snipped...>
Appending 1000000 timers
Time for 1000000 timers: 424066294 (193ms), Time per timer: 424 (0us)
Time for 1000000 callbacks: 73124504 (33ms), Time per callback: 73
(0us) Resetting 1000000 timers Time for 1000000 timers: 1406756396
(641ms), Time per timer: 1406 (1us) <...snipped...>

43 lcores enabled, installing 1M timers on an lcore and processing them

with proposed design:

quoted

<...snipped...>
Appending 1000000 timers
Time for 1000000 timers: 382912762 (174ms), Time per timer: 382 (0us)
Time for 1000000 callbacks: 79194418 (36ms), Time per callback: 79
(0us) Resetting 1000000 timers Time for 1000000 timers: 1427189116
(650ms), Time per timer: 1427 (1us) <...snipped…>

it looks ok then. The main concern I had was the timers in Pktgen and
someone telling the jitter increase or latency or performance. I guess I will
just have to wait an see.

quoted

The above are not averages, so the numbers don't really indicate which is

faster, but they show that the overhead of the proposed design should not
be appreciable.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

One option is to have the lcore j that wants to install a timer on
lcore k to pass a message via a ring to lcore k to add that timer.
We could even add that logic into setting a timer on a different
lcore then the caller in the current API. The ring would be a
multi-producer and

single consumer, we still have the lock.

quoted

quoted

What am I missing here?

I did try this approach: initially I had a multi-producer
single-consumer ring

that would hold requests to add or delete a timer from lcore k's
skiplist, but it didn't really give an appreciable increase in my test

application throughput.

quoted

quoted

In profiling this solution, the hotspot had moved from acquiring the
skiplist's spinlock to the rte_atomic32_cmpset that the
multiple-producer ring code uses to manipulate the head pointer.

quoted

Then, I tried multiple single-producer single-consumer rings per
target

lcore.  This removed the ring hotspot, but the performance didn't
increase as much as with the proposed solution. These solutions also
add overhead to rte_timer_manage, as it would have to process the
rings and then process the skiplists.

quoted

One other thing to note is that a solution that uses such messages
changes

the use models for the timer.  One interesting example is:

quoted

- lcore I enqueues a message to install a timer on lcore k
- lcore k runs rte_timer_manage, processes its messages and adds the
timer to its list
- lcore I then enqueues a message to stop the same timer, now owned
by lcore k
- lcore k does not run rte_timer_manage again
- lcore I wants to free the timer but it might not be safe

This case seems like a mistake to me as lcore k should continue to
call
rte_timer_manager() to process any new timers from other lcores not
just the case where the list becomes empty and lcore k does not add
timer to his list.

quoted

Even though lcore I has successfully enqueued the request to stop
the

timer (and delete it from lcore k's pending list), it hasn't actually
been deleted from the list yet,  so freeing it could corrupt the
list.  This case exists in the existing timer stress tests.

quoted

Another interesting scenario is:
- lcore I resets a timer to install it on lcore k
- lcore j resets the same timer to install it on lcore k
- then, lcore k runs timer_manage

This one also seems like a mistake, more then one lcore setting the
same timer seems like a problem and should not be done. A lcore
should own a timer and no other lcore should be able to change that
timer. If multiple lcores need a timer then they should not share the same

timer structure.

quoted

quoted

Both of the above cases exist in the timer library stress tests, so a solution

would presumably need to address them or it would be less flexible.  The
original design passed these tests, as does the proposed one.

I get this twitch when one lcore is adding timers to another lcore as I come
from a realtime OS background, but I guess if no one else cares or finds a
problem I will have to live with it. Having a test for something does not make
it a good test or a reasonable reason to continue a design issue. We can make
any test work, but is it right is the real question and we will just have to wait
an see I guess.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Lcore j's message obviates lcore i's message, and it would be wasted
work

for lcore k to process it, so we should mark it to be skipped over.

Handling all

quoted

quoted

the edge cases was more complex than the solution proposed.

Hmmm, to me it seems simple here as long as the lcores follow the
same rules and sharing a timer structure is very risky and avoidable IMO.

Once you have lcores adding timers to another lcore then all accesses
to that skip list must be serialized or you get unpredictable
results. This should also fix most of the edge cases you are talking about.

Also it seems to me the case with an lcore adding timers to another
lcore timer list is a specific use case and could be handled by a
different set of APIs for that specific use case. Then we do not need
to change the current design and all of the overhead is placed on the
new APIs/design. IMO we are turning the current timer design into a
global timer design as it really is a per lcore design today and I beleive that

is a mistake.

quoted

quoted

Well, the original API explicitly supports installing a timer to be executed on

a different lcore, and there are no API changes in the patchset.  Also, the
proposed design keeps the per-lcore design intact;  it only takes what used
to be one large skiplist that held timers for all installing lcores, and separates
it into N skiplists that correspond 1:1 to an installing lcore.  When an lcore
processes timers on its lists it will still only be managing timers it owns, and no
others.


Having an API to explicitly support some feature is not a reason to keep
something, but I think you have reduce my twitching some :-) so I will let it
go.

Thanks for the information.

You're welcome, and thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Gabriel

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Gabriel Carrillo (3):
timer: add per-installer pending lists for each lcore
timer: handle timers installed from non-EAL threads
doc: update timer lib docs

doc/guides/prog_guide/timer_lib.rst |  19 ++-
lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c        | 329 +++++++++++++++++++++++---

---

quoted

quoted

---

quoted

quoted

----

quoted

lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.h        |   9 +-
3 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)

--
2.6.4

Regards,
Keith

Regards,
Keith

Regards,
Keith