Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:28:16 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Tom Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, steved@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets - continued

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:09:26AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 01:15:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
> > > performance problem in KVM.  I have a different setup than what Steve D.
> > > was using so I re-baselined things on the kvm.git kernel on both the
> > > host and guest with a 10GbE adapter.  I also made use of the
> > > virtio-stats patch.
> > > 
> > > The virtual machine has 2 vCPUs, 8GB of memory and two virtio network
> > > adapters (the first connected to a 1GbE adapter and a LAN, the second
> > > connected to a 10GbE adapter that is direct connected to another system
> > > with the same 10GbE adapter) running the kvm.git kernel.  The test was a
> > > TCP_RR test with 100 connections from a baremetal client to the KVM
> > > guest using a 256 byte message size in both directions.

One thing that might be happening is that we are out of
atomic memory poll in guest, so indirect allocations
start failing, and this is slow path.
Could you check this please?


> > > I used the uperf tool to do this after verifying the results against
> > > netperf. Uperf allows the specification of the number of connections as
> > > a parameter in an XML file as opposed to launching, in this case, 100
> > > separate instances of netperf.
> > > 
> > > Here is the baseline for baremetal using 2 physical CPUs:
> > >   Txn Rate: 206,389.59 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 410,048 Pkts/Sec
> > >   TxCPU: 7.88%  RxCPU: 99.41%
> > > 
> > > To be sure to get consistent results with KVM I disabled the
> > > hyperthreads, pinned the qemu-kvm process, vCPUs, vhost thread and
> > > ethernet adapter interrupts (this resulted in runs that differed by only
> > > about 2% from lowest to highest).  The fact that pinning is required to
> > > get consistent results is a different problem that we'll have to look
> > > into later...
> > > 
> > > Here is the KVM baseline (average of six runs):
> > >   Txn Rate: 87,070.34 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 172,992 Pkts/Sec
> > >   Exits: 148,444.58 Exits/Sec
> > >   TxCPU: 2.40%  RxCPU: 99.35%
> > > 
> > > About 42% of baremetal.
> > 
> > Can you add interrupt stats as well please?
> 
> Yes I can.  Just the guest interrupts for the virtio device?

Guess so: tx and rx.

> > 
> > > empty.  So I coded a quick patch to delay freeing of the used Tx buffers
> > > until more than half the ring was used (I did not test this under a
> > > stream condition so I don't know if this would have a negative impact). 
> > > Here are the results
> > > 
> > > from delaying the freeing of used Tx buffers (average of six runs):
> > >   Txn Rate: 90,886.19 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 180,571 Pkts/Sec
> > >   Exits: 142,681.67 Exits/Sec
> > >   TxCPU: 2.78%  RxCPU: 99.36%
> > > 
> > > About a 4% increase over baseline and about 44% of baremetal.
> > 
> > Hmm, I am not sure what you mean by delaying freeing.
> 
> In the start_xmit function of virtio_net.c the first thing done is to free any 
> used entries from the ring.  I patched the code to track the number of used tx 
> ring entries and only free the used entries when they are greater than half 
> the capacity of the ring (similar to the way the rx ring is re-filled).

We don't even need than: just max skb frag + 2.
Also don't need to free them all: just enough to get
place for  max skb frag + 2 entries.

> > I think we do have a problem that free_old_xmit_skbs
> > tries to flush out the ring aggressively:
> > it always polls until the ring is empty,
> > so there could be bursts of activity where
> > we spend a lot of time flushing the old entries
> > before e.g. sending an ack, resulting in
> > latency bursts.
> > 
> > Generally we'll need some smarter logic,
> > but with indirect at the moment we can just poll
> > a single packet after we post a new one, and be done with it.
> > Is your patch something like the patch below?
> > Could you try mine as well please?
> 
> Yes, I'll try the patch and post the results.
> 
> > 
> > > This spread out the kick_notify but still resulted in alot of them.  I
> > > decided to build on the delayed Tx buffer freeing and code up an
> > > "ethtool" like coalescing patch in order to delay the kick_notify until
> > > there were at least 5 packets on the ring or 2000 usecs, whichever
> > > occurred first.  Here are the
> > > 
> > > results of delaying the kick_notify (average of six runs):
> > >   Txn Rate: 107,106.36 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 212,796 Pkts/Sec
> > >   Exits: 102,587.28 Exits/Sec
> > >   TxCPU: 3.03%  RxCPU: 99.33%
> > > 
> > > About a 23% increase over baseline and about 52% of baremetal.
> > > 
> > > Running the perf command against the guest I noticed almost 19% of the
> > > time being spent in _raw_spin_lock.  Enabling lockstat in the guest
> > > showed alot of contention in the "irq_desc_lock_class". Pinning the
> > > virtio1-input interrupt to a single cpu in the guest and re-running the
> > > last test resulted in
> > > 
> > > tremendous gains (average of six runs):
> > >   Txn Rate: 153,696.59 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 305,358 Pkgs/Sec
> > >   Exits: 62,603.37 Exits/Sec
> > >   TxCPU: 3.73%  RxCPU: 98.52%
> > > 
> > > About a 77% increase over baseline and about 74% of baremetal.
> > > 
> > > Vhost is receiving a lot of notifications for packets that are to be
> > > transmitted (over 60% of the packets generate a kick_notify).  Also, it
> > > looks like vhost is sending a lot of notifications for packets it has
> > > received before the guest can get scheduled to disable notifications and
> > > begin processing the packets
> > 
> > Hmm, is this really what happens to you?  The effect would be that guest
> > gets an interrupt while notifications are disabled in guest, right? Could
> > you add a counter and check this please?
> 
> The disabling of the interrupt/notifications is done by the guest.  So the 
> guest has to get scheduled and handle the notification before it disables 
> them.  The vhost_signal routine will keep injecting an interrupt until this 
> happens causing the contention in the guest.  I'll try the patches you specify 
> below and post the results.  They look like they should take care of this 
> issue.
> 
> > 
> > Another possible thing to try would be these old patches to publish used
> > index from guest to make sure this double interrupt does not happen:
> >  [PATCHv2] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself
> >  [PATCHv2] vhost-net: utilize PUBLISH_USED_IDX feature
> > 
> > > resulting in some lock contention in the guest (and
> > > high interrupt rates).
> > > 
> > > Some thoughts for the transmit path...  can vhost be enhanced to do some
> > > adaptive polling so that the number of kick_notify events are reduced and
> > > replaced by kick_no_notify events?
> > 
> > Worth a try.
> > 
> > > Comparing the transmit path to the receive path, the guest disables
> > > notifications after the first kick and vhost re-enables notifications
> > > after completing processing of the tx ring.
> > 
> > Is this really what happens? I though the host disables notifications
> > after the first kick.
> 
> Yup, sorry for the confusion.  The kick is done by the guest and then vhost 
> disables notifications.  Maybe a similar approach to the above patches of 
> checking the used index in the virtio_net driver could also help here?

If this happens there will be many kicks that find an empty ring.
Could you add a counter in vhost and check please?

-- 
MST
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists