netdev - Re: Network performance with small packets

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:25:08 -0800
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, steved@...ibm.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 22:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:09:03PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 19:23 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:02 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > > > Interesting. Could this is be a variant of the now famuous
> > > > > bufferbloat then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sigh, bufferbloat is the new global warming... :-/ 
> > > > 
> > > > Yep, some places become colder, some other places become warmer;
> > > Same as
> > > > BW results, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. :)
> > > > 
> > > > Shirley
> > > 
> > > Sent a tuning patch (v2) that might help.
> > > Could you try it and play with the module parameters please? 
> > 
> > Hello Michael,
> > 
> > Sure I will play with this patch to see how it could help. 
> > 
> > I am looking at guest side as well, I found a couple issues on guest
> > side:
> > 
> > 1. free_old_xmit_skbs() should return the number of skbs instead of
> the
> > total of sgs since we are using ring size to stop/start netif queue.
> > static unsigned int free_old_xmit_skbs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > {
> >         struct sk_buff *skb;
> >         unsigned int len, tot_sgs = 0;
> > 
> >         while ((skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len)) != NULL) {
> >                 pr_debug("Sent skb %p\n", skb);
> >                 vi->dev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
> >                 vi->dev->stats.tx_packets++;
> >                 tot_sgs += skb_vnet_hdr(skb)->num_sg;
> >                 dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> >         }
> >         return tot_sgs; <---- should return numbers of skbs to track
> > ring usage here, I think;
> > }
> > 
> > Did the old guest use number of buffers to track ring usage before?
> > 
> > 2. In start_xmit, I think we should move capacity +=
> free_old_xmit_skbs
> > before netif_stop_queue(); so we avoid unnecessary netif queue
> > stop/start. This condition is heavily hit for small message size.
> > 
> > Also we capacity checking condition should change to something like
> half
> > of the vring.num size, instead of comparing 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS?
> > 
> >        if (capacity < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> >                 netif_stop_queue(dev);
> >                 if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb(vi->svq))) {
> >                         /* More just got used, free them then
> recheck.
> > */
> >                         capacity += free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
> >                         if (capacity >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> >                                 netif_start_queue(dev);
> >                                 virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
> >                         }
> >                 }
> >         }
> > 
> > 3. Looks like the xmit callback is only used to wake the queue when
> the
> > queue has stopped, right? Should we put a condition check here?
> > static void skb_xmit_done(struct virtqueue *svq)
> > {
> >         struct virtnet_info *vi = svq->vdev->priv;
> > 
> >         /* Suppress further interrupts. */
> >         virtqueue_disable_cb(svq);
> > 
> >         /* We were probably waiting for more output buffers. */
> > --->   if (netif_queue_stopped(vi->dev))
> >         netif_wake_queue(vi->dev);
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > Shirley
> 
> Well the return value is used to calculate capacity and that counts
> the # of s/g. No?

Nope, the current guest kernel uses descriptors not number of sgs. I am
not sure the old guest.

> From cache utilization POV it might be better to read from the skb and
> not peek at virtio header though...
> Pls Cc the lists on any discussions in the future.
> 
> -- 
> MST

Sorry I missed reply all. :(

Shirley

--
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