netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:48:33 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc:	anthony@...emonkey.ws, davem@...emloft.net, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, rick.jones2@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 02:53:03PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote on 09/08/2010 01:40:11 PM:
> 
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> > >                            TCP (#numtxqs=2)
> > > N#      BW1     BW2    (%)      SD1     SD2    (%)      RSD1    RSD2
> (%)
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> > > 4       26387   40716 (54.30)   20      28   (40.00)    86i     85
> (-1.16)
> > > 8       24356   41843 (71.79)   88      129  (46.59)    372     362
> (-2.68)
> > > 16      23587   40546 (71.89)   375     564  (50.40)    1558    1519
> (-2.50)
> > > 32      22927   39490 (72.24)   1617    2171 (34.26)    6694    5722
> (-14.52)
> > > 48      23067   39238 (70.10)   3931    5170 (31.51)    15823   13552
> (-14.35)
> > > 64      22927   38750 (69.01)   7142    9914 (38.81)    28972   26173
> (-9.66)
> > > 96      22568   38520 (70.68)   16258   27844 (71.26)   65944   73031
> (10.74)
> >
> > That's a significant hit in TCP SD. Is it caused by the imbalance between
> > number of queues for TX and RX? Since you mention RX is complete,
> > maybe measure with a balanced TX/RX?
> 
> Yes, I am not sure why it is so high.

Any errors at higher levels? Are any packets reordered?

> I found the same with #RX=#TX
> too. As a hack, I tried ixgbe without MQ (set "indices=1" before
> calling alloc_etherdev_mq, not sure if that is entirely correct) -
> here too SD worsened by around 40%. I can't explain it, since the
> virtio-net driver runs lock free once sch_direct_xmit gets
> HARD_TX_LOCK for the specific txq. Maybe the SD calculation is not strictly
> correct since
> more threads are now running parallel and load is higher? Eg, if you
> compare SD between
> #netperfs = 8 vs 16 for original code (cut-n-paste relevant columns
> only) ...
> 
> N#         BW        SD
> 8           24356   88
> 16         23587   375
> 
> ... SD has increased more than 4 times for the same BW.
> 
> > What happens with a single netperf?
> > host -> guest performance with TCP and small packet speed
> > are also worth measuring.
> 
> OK, I will do this and send the results later today.
> 
> > At some level, host/guest communication is easy in that we don't really
> > care which queue is used.  I would like to give some thought (and
> > testing) to how is this going to work with a real NIC card and packet
> > steering at the backend.
> > Any idea?
> 
> I have done a little testing with guest -> remote server both
> using a bridge and with macvtap (mq is required only for rx).
> I didn't understand what you mean by packet steering though,
> is it whether packets go out of the NIC on different queues?
> If so, I verified that is the case by putting a counter and
> displaying through /debug interface on the host. dev_queue_xmit
> on the host handles it by calling dev_pick_tx().
> 
> > > Guest interrupts for a 4 TXQ device after a 5 min test:
> > > # egrep "virtio0|CPU" /proc/interrupts
> > >       CPU0     CPU1     CPU2    CPU3
> > > 40:   0        0        0       0        PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-config
> > > 41:   126955   126912   126505  126940   PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-input
> > > 42:   108583   107787   107853  107716   PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-output.0
> > > 43:   300278   297653   299378  300554   PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-output.1
> > > 44:   372607   374884   371092  372011   PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-output.2
> > > 45:   162042   162261   163623  162923   PCI-MSI-edge  virtio0-output.3
> >
> > Does this mean each interrupt is constantly bouncing between CPUs?
> 
> Yes. I didn't do *any* tuning for the tests. The only "tuning"
> was to use 64K IO size with netperf. When I ran default netperf
> (16K), I got a little lesser improvement in BW and worse(!) SD
> than with 64K.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - KK
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html