I just tripped over this again when trying to use some of the 16K changes I have in my Netflix tree on a personal machine running a GENERIC kernel, so let's try this again in a different way.

Thank you for adding that option.

In D43504#1017265, @markj wrote:

In D43504#1017242, @gallatin wrote:

Below are the results from my testing. I'm sorry that it took so long.. I had to re-do testing from the start b/c the new machine was not exactly identical to the old (different BIOS rev) and was giving slightly different results.
The results are from 92Gb/s of traffic over a one hour period with 45-47K TCP connections established/

No SDT probes: 56.4%
normal SDT 57.5%
new IP SDTs 57.9%
new IP SDT+ 56.6%
zero-cost

Just to be clear, "SDT+" is with the patch I supplied to provide new asm goto-based SDT probes? I'm not sure what the "zero-cost" line means.

This is just measuring CPU usage as reported by the scheduler?

I made some progress on the hot-patching implementation last week. I hope to have it ready fairly soon.

In D43504#1017265, @markj wrote:

In D43504#1017242, @gallatin wrote:

Below are the results from my testing. I'm sorry that it took so long.. I had to re-do testing from the start b/c the new machine was not exactly identical to the old (different BIOS rev) and was giving slightly different results.
The results are from 92Gb/s of traffic over a one hour period with 45-47K TCP connections established/

No SDT probes: 56.4%
normal SDT 57.5%
new IP SDTs 57.9%
new IP SDT+ 56.6%
zero-cost

Just to be clear, "SDT+" is with the patch I supplied to provide new asm goto-based SDT probes? I'm not sure what the "zero-cost" line means.

This is just measuring CPU usage as reported by the scheduler?

I made some progress on the hot-patching implementation last week. I hope to have it ready fairly soon.

Below are the results from my testing. I'm sorry that it took so long.. I had to re-do testing from the start b/c the new machine was not exactly identical to the old (different BIOS rev) and was giving slightly different results.
The results are from 92Gb/s of traffic over a one hour period with 45-47K TCP connections established/

In D43504#1014924, @gallatin wrote:

OK, starting with an unpatched kernel & working my way through the patches. I'll report percent busy for unpatched and various patches on our original 100G server (based around Xeon E5-2697A v4, which tends to be a poster-child for cache misses, as it runs very close to the limits of its memory bandwidth. I'll be disabling powerd and using TCP RACK TCP's DGP pacing.

This will take several days, as it takes a while to load up a server, get a few hours of steady-state, and unload it gently,.

OK, starting with an unpatched kernel & working my way through the patches. I'll report percent busy for unpatched and various patches on our original 100G server (based around Xeon E5-2697A v4, which tends to be a poster-child for cache misses, as it runs very close to the limits of its memory bandwidth. I'll be disabling powerd and using TCP RACK TCP's DGP pacing.

In D43504#1014487, @markj wrote:

Regarding SDT hotpatching, the implementation[1] was written a long time ago, before we had "asm goto" in LLVM. It required a custom toolchain program[2].

Since then, "asm goto" support appeared in LLVM. It makes for a much simpler implementation. I hacked up part of it and posted a patch[3]. In particular, the patch makes use of asm goto to remove the branch and data access. (The probe site is moved to the end of the function in an unreachable block.) The actual hot-patching part isn't implemented and will take some more work, but this is enough to do some benchmarking to verify that the overhead really is minimal. @gallatin would you be able to verify this?

I would also appreciate any comments on the approach taken in the patch, keeping in mind that the MD bits are not yet implemented.

[1] https://people.freebsd.org/~markj/patches/sdt-zerocost/
[2] https://github.com/markjdb/sdtpatch
[3] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D44483

In D43504#1013980, @tuexen wrote:

I agree, that introducing these probes should not have a performance hit. Since they exist in Solaris, I was assuming that there is no substantial performance hit. I would really like to see zero cost probes going into the tree.

In D43504#1013965, @gallatin wrote:

Guys, this is crazy. Every SDT probe does a test on a global variable. If this lands, it will cause a noticeable performance impact, especially in high packet rate workloads. Can we shelve this until / unless SDT is modified to insert nops rather than do tests on a global variable? Or put this under its own options EXTRA_IP_PROBES or something?

Guys, this is crazy. Every SDT probe does a test on a global variable. If this lands, it will cause a noticeable performance impact, especially in high packet rate workloads. Can we shelve this until / unless SDT is modified to insert nops rather than do tests on a global variable? Or put this under its own options EXTRA_IP_PROBES or something?

In D44204#1011171, @zlei wrote:

Generally looks good to me.

This tests well. On my test system hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697A v4 @ 2.60GHz, I see a 50% reduction in syscall latency for the lmbench lat_syscall test (0.89us -> 0.44us) when the system is idle.

Do you think you could also add a 'bool __read_mostly hpts_userrret_hook = true;' controlled by a sysctl to avoid calling into htps at all from userret for folks that want to disable this entirely?

In D44204#1008904, @melifaro wrote:

LGTM, q - would it be possible to introduce ‘ip6po_<set|clear>_<field>’ inline functions and use them so we don’t accidentally miss setting/clearing up the relevant bit?

In D44204#1008766, @ae wrote:

Probably you can simplify some similar checks in in6_src.c too, e.g. IP6PO_VALID_PKTINFO and IP6PO_VALID_NHINFO. Not sure how it impacts your cache misses measurements.

Added a comment explaining why the flags exist, as suggested by @glebius

In D44204#1008527, @bz wrote:

Initially I thought we should name some better but the original structs have the same names so all good.
I have not checked if you got all the places but it looks good.

• added a blank like before ip6po_m, as requested by @bz

In D43504#991958, @kp wrote:

In D43400#989566, @jhb wrote:

For future reference, uploading diffs with context (e.g. with git-arc) makes reviewing easier. I don't think we need the vnet around if_rele() (in case it calls if_free), so I think this is correct.

In D43385#989059, @mav wrote:

There is already a panic in apei_ge_handler(), based on total status severity. Do you see it not enough?

Removed hunk that was Netflix specific

I pinged Nvidia/Mellanox last week, and I'm still waiting to hear back to see if they can support AccECN in their NICs

OK, I'm sorry, I was not aware of AccECN and its desired behavior of setting CWR on all segments.

Properly handling CWR is part of the NDIS spec... though the spec is broken, and says that "If the CWR bit in the TCP header of the large TCP packet is set, the miniport driver must set this bit in the TCP header of the first packet that it creates from the large TCP packet. The miniport driver may choose to set this bit in the TCP header of the last packet that it creates from the large TCP packet, although this is less desirable." [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/network/offloading-the-segmentation-of-large-tcp-packets]

I'd prefer you add a feature flag so that NICs which do properly support CWR be able to use TSO, and avoid being pessimized by this.

In D42988#980253, @glebius wrote:

The if_afdata[] array comes from the old BSD times when it was expected that there would be support for many many address families (e.g. IPX, AppleTalk, etc). Right now it has only two entries AF_INET and AF_INET6. It is very very very unlikely it will ever get a third one. It is much more likely that the array will go away and we will have just ifp->if_inet and ifp->if_inet6. Or maybe something more complicated. Anyway, the access to this data is going to change anyway, so there is no point in overdesigning it right now. Any solution for the sake of IfAPI cleanness is acceptable.

I'll add couple more people to confirm or argue my statement.

• Tried to address @wulf 's feedback

Test signature as suggested by @imp

It seems like this was obsoleted by:

Wouldn't it be better to toggle the IFCAP2_BIT(IFCAP2_RXTLS4) and IFCAP2_BIT(IFCAP2_RXTLS6) than to add the check in mlx5e_tls_rx_snd_tag_alloc()?

I'm abandoning this in favor of handling events directly (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D42158)

In D42158#961862, @imp wrote:

I don't suppose that there's a way to know if the GPE handler sleeps so we can warn / avoid it?

In D42158#961861, @andrew wrote:

Would it be useful to add a tunable to revert to the current behaviour if we do find a machine that can't run the ACPI method from an ithread?

Update to add a tunable to run ged events in a deferred context, as suggested by @andrew

In D42141#961666, @jhb wrote:

The duplicate events would be fixed by my other suggestion of using a dedicated struct task instead of calling AcpiOsExecute which allocates and schedules a new struct task each time.

My worry is that GED is too general a thing. It means "go run some random firmware-provided bit of AML that can do God knows what" when an interrupt occurs.

After digging in the spec for a bit, the description there for GED (5.6.9) is not very clear. There is one requirement for event handling in general for interrupts by the OS (OSPM) is to leave the interrupt source disabled (e.g. the GIC pin masked) until the ACPI control method has been executed (section 5.6.4 that talks about Generic Event Handling). The current acpi_ged driver definitely doesn't do that, and our interrupt model doesn't have a good way to cope with that (we re-enable the GIC pin after the ithread handler completes). We might just have to run the method synchronously and hope for the best. The spec doesn't mandate that these handlers are safe, but it does suggest that they should invoke Notify() from the AML for non-trivial event reporting, so it may be that these are safe. The _EVT handler is required by the spec to clear the interrupt so it doesn't keep firing.

In D42141#961590, @andrew wrote:

Do we know what types of GED events might sleep? I'm not sure this will work when there's only a single CPU as it will be identical to the pre-AP startup case.

Thank you!

Thank you; this fixes the weird performance problem that we've yet to fully root cause.

I think I agree with Eric and Kevin after looking at this further, and withdraw my approval

Don't you need a mtx_init() ? Or did I just miss it..?

Again, you've hand-rolled what is essentially a mutex_trylock(). Why not just use a mutex?

This allows the ktls tests for chacha poly to pass when the ossl driver is attached.