netdev - Re: [PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit

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:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:57:38 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs
 exceed the limit

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
> any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
> transmission. Consider the following setup:
> 
>     +-----+        +-----+
>     | VM1 |        | VM2 |
>     +--+--+        +--+--+
>        |              |
>     +--+--+        +--+--+
>     | tap0|        | tap1|
>     +--+--+        +--+--+
>        |              |
>     pfifo_fast   htb(10Mbit/s)
>        |              |
>     +--+--------------+---+
>     |     bridge          |
>     +--+------------------+
>        |
>     pfifo_fast
>        |
>     +-----+
>     | eth0|(100Mbit/s)
>     +-----+
> 
> - start two VMs and connect them to a bridge
> - add an physical card (100Mbit/s) to that bridge
> - setup htb on tap1 and limit its throughput to 10Mbit/s
> - run two netperfs in the same time, one is from VM1 to VM2. Another is
>   from VM1 to an external host through eth0.
> - result shows that not only the VM1 to VM2 traffic were throttled but
>   also the VM1 to external host through eth0 is also throttled somehow.
> 
> This is because the delay added by htb may lead the delay the finish
> of DMAs and cause the pending DMAs for tap0 exceeds the limit
> (VHOST_MAX_PEND). In this case vhost stop handling tx request until
> htb send some packets. The problem here is all of the packets
> transmission were blocked even if it does not go to VM2.
> 
> We can solve this issue by relaxing it a little bit: switching to use
> data copy instead of stopping tx when the number of pending DMAs
> exceed the VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is safe because:
> 
> - The number of pending DMAs were still limited by VHOST_MAX_PEND
> - The out of order completion during mode switch can make sure that
>   most of the tx buffers were freed in time in guest.
> 
> So even if about 50% packets were delayed in zero-copy case, vhost
> could continue to do the transmission through data copy in this case.
> 
> Test result:
> 
> Before this patch:
> VM1 to VM2 throughput is 9.3Mbit/s
> VM1 to External throughput is 40Mbit/s
> 
> After this patch:
> VM1 to VM2 throughput is 9.3Mbit/s
> Vm1 to External throughput is 93Mbit/s

Would like to see CPU utilization #s as well.

> Simple performance test on 40gbe shows no obvious changes in
> throughput after this patch.
> 
> The patch only solve this issue when unlimited sndbuf. We still need a
> solution for limited sndbuf.
> 
> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> Cc: Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>

I think this needs some thought.

In particular I think this works because VHOST_MAX_PEND
is much smaller than the ring size.
Shouldn't max_pend then be tied to the ring size if it's small?

Another question is about stopping vhost:
ATM it's waiting for skbs to complete.
Should we maybe hunt down skbs queued and destroy them
instead?
I think this happens when a device is removed.

Thoughts?

> ---
>  drivers/vhost/net.c | 17 +++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> index a0fa5de..3e96e47 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>  		.msg_flags = MSG_DONTWAIT,
>  	};
>  	size_t len, total_len = 0;
> -	int err;
> +	int err, num_pends;
>  	size_t hdr_size;
>  	struct socket *sock;
>  	struct vhost_net_ubuf_ref *uninitialized_var(ubufs);
> @@ -366,13 +366,6 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>  		if (zcopy)
>  			vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
>  
> -		/* If more outstanding DMAs, queue the work.
> -		 * Handle upend_idx wrap around
> -		 */
> -		if (unlikely((nvq->upend_idx + vq->num - VHOST_MAX_PEND)
> -			      % UIO_MAXIOV == nvq->done_idx))
> -			break;
> -
>  		head = vhost_get_vq_desc(&net->dev, vq, vq->iov,
>  					 ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
>  					 &out, &in,
> @@ -405,9 +398,13 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> +		num_pends = likely(nvq->upend_idx >= nvq->done_idx) ?
> +			    (nvq->upend_idx - nvq->done_idx) :
> +			    (nvq->upend_idx + UIO_MAXIOV -
> +			     nvq->done_idx);
> +
>  		zcopy_used = zcopy && len >= VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN
> -				   && (nvq->upend_idx + 1) % UIO_MAXIOV !=
> -				      nvq->done_idx
> +				   && num_pends <= VHOST_MAX_PEND
>  				   && vhost_net_tx_select_zcopy(net);
>  
>  		/* use msg_control to pass vhost zerocopy ubuf info to skb */
> -- 
> 1.8.3.2
--
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