Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111006222921.039bb800@binnacle.cx>
Date:	Thu, 06 Oct 2011 22:33:44 -0400
From:	starlight@...nacle.cx
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 
  -> 2.6.32

[repost with wrapped lines]

UPDATE

Hi all, I'm back with a significant update.

First, discovered that the problem with UDP was a
tightening of the reverse-path filter logic in
newer kernels.  To make the test work had to
configure 'net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0' in
'sysctl.conf'.  Was able to rerun all the tests in
the nominal UDP sockets mode instead of packet
socket mode.

Second I was intrigued by an assertion put forward
that older kernels are always better than newer
kernels.  So with some effort I managed to coerce
2.6.9(rhel4) into running on the Opteron 6174 CPU,
though it only recognized eight of the twelve
cores.


Here are the CPU results.  User and sys are expressed in jiffies.

kernel version      cpu total   user     sys        IRQ/s
2.6.18-194.8.1.el5  02:18:40  625666  206423 (24.8%)  18k
2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4) 02:31:12  689024  218198 (24.0%)  18k*
2.6.32-71.29.1.el6  02:50:14  602191  419276 (41.0%)  64k
2.6.39.4(vanilla)   02:42:35  629817  345674 (35.4%)  85k

kernel version      cpu total   user     sys        IRQ/s
2.6.18-194.8.1.el5         -       -       -            -
2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4)    +9.0%  +10.1%   +5.7%           0%*
2.6.32-71.29.1.el6    +22.7%   -3.8%   +103%        +255%
2.6.39.4(vanilla)     +17.2%   +0.7%  +67.4%        +372%

* test speed was run at 2/3rds to equalize
  the per-core frame rate since four cores
  were disabled


Here are some latency data samples.  Report
interval is 10 seconds, all latency columns are in
milliseconds.


2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
198283   0.011    3.139    0.239    0.169
206597   0.012    3.085    0.237    0.178
195939   0.012    4.220    0.266    0.211
206378   0.013    4.006    0.274    0.218
211994   0.012    3.771    0.248    0.184
222325   0.011    3.106    0.234    0.156
210871   0.011    2.693    0.254    0.177

2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4)
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
139786   0.013    3.637    0.335    0.238 
149788   0.013    3.957    0.384    0.258 
144065   0.014    7.637    0.376    0.283 
142088   0.012    3.996    0.398    0.281 
141026   0.014    4.174    0.383    0.253 
143387   0.014    4.457    0.366    0.236 
147699   0.013    4.615    0.359    0.238 

2.6.32-71.29.1.el6
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
206452   0.015    4.516    0.268    0.197
195740   0.016    4.227    0.277    0.206
206644   0.012    3.412    0.276    0.194
212008   0.012    2.569    0.269    0.182
222119   0.011    2.523    0.266    0.178
211377   0.012    2.779    0.277    0.178
214113   0.013    2.680    0.277    0.184

2.6.39.4(vanilla)
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
198530   0.012    2.736    0.274    0.147
200148   0.012    1.971    0.272    0.145
209972   0.010    2.975    0.270    0.150
219775   0.012    2.595    0.263    0.151
215601   0.015    2.554    0.276    0.153
211549   0.010    3.075    0.282    0.158
219332   0.012    2.658    0.271    0.144

2.6.9(rhel4) was a bit worse than 2.6.18(rhel5).
However the fact that it ran on eight cores
instead of twelve may have subtly affected the
outcome.  Also this kernel was built with the gcc
3.4.6 RH distro compiler which may generate code
less well optimized for the 6174 CPU.  Therefore I
view it as pretty close to a tie, but
2.6.18(rhel5) is the obviously better choice for
the superior hardware support it provides.

Despite consuming a great deal more CPU, the newer
kernels made a good showing on latency in this
mode where only one thread wakeup occurs per
arriving frame.  Both have slighter tighter
latency distributions and slightly improved
worst-case latencies.  2.6.39.4 is somewhat better
than 2.6.32(rhel6) on all fronts.  Nonetheless I
find the much higher CPU consumption to be a major
negative since this reduces the overall capacity
available on identical hardware.

-----

Now for the tests performed earlier and to which
all my comments prior to this post apply.  Ran
these only because I thought UDP was broken, but
now I find I'm pleased with the added perspective
they provide.  In this mode our application reads
all the data from four interfaces via packet
sockets (one per interface), and then requeues the
packets to a pool of worker threads.  Potentially
two application worker thread wakeup events occur
for each frame, though wakeups only occur when
work queues become empty.  The worker thread pool
consists of nine threads with packets routed by
similar type to maximize cache locality during
processing.

2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
217629   0.015    1.841    0.150    0.080
217523   0.015    1.213    0.155    0.076
209183   0.014    0.624    0.129    0.066
220726   0.014    1.255    0.160    0.087
220400   0.015    3.374    0.197    0.172
238151   0.014    1.275    0.182    0.090
249239   0.016    1.399    0.197    0.093

2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4)
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
138561   0.019    3.163    0.333    0.236
144033   0.014    3.691    0.337    0.240
147437   0.016    3.802    0.320    0.226
147297   0.016    4.063    0.351    0.292
156178   0.018    3.560    0.322    0.244
166156   0.019    3.983    0.326    0.246
161930   0.017    3.441    0.311    0.197

2.6.32-71.29.1.el6
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
210340   0.017    8.734    0.344    0.638
220199   0.020    7.319    0.341    0.530
216868   0.019    6.376    0.332    0.544
211556   0.019    7.494    0.318    0.493
219462   0.014    7.472    0.344    0.545
225027   0.022    8.103    0.382    0.639
245629   0.017    8.713    0.382    0.594

2.6.39.4(vanilla)
sample     min      max     mean    sigma
253791   0.020    6.127    0.505    0.544
256739   0.020    6.960    0.535    0.577
258719   0.019    8.116    0.500    0.541
244735   0.018    6.781    0.542    0.634
250195   0.021    8.205    0.531    0.568

In this mode latency is quite a lot better with
the 2.6.18(rhel5) kernel and seriously worse in
the newer kernels.  Perhaps what is happening in
2.6.18(rhel) is that frames are being received on
one set of cores and processed on a different set,
with relatively few actual thread sleep/wake
events.  The cache on each core is hot for the
task it is performing, and due to the
specialization of each worker thread less code
cache pressure is present.  In 2.6.39.4 I can only
say that the context switch rate was in the
typical 200k/sec range where older kernels ran at
less than half that.  Sorry now that I did not
record CS rates more carefully.


Here's CPU consumption:

kernel version      cpu total   user     sys        IRQ/s
2.6.18-194.8.1.el5  02:07:16  615516  148152 (19.4%)  28k 
2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4) 02:30:22  696344  205953 (22.8%)  20k
2.6.32-71.29.1.el6  02:15:50  585276  229767 (28.1%) 163k
2.6.39.4(vanilla)   02:27:44  658074  228420 (25.7%) 165k

kernel version      cpu total   user     sys        IRQ/s
2.6.18-194.8.1.el5         -       -       -            -
2.6.9-101.EL(rhel4)   +18.1%  +13.1%   +39.0%        -29%
2.6.32-71.29.1.el6     +6.7%   -4.9%   +55.0%       +482%
2.6.39.4(vanilla)     +16.0%   +6.0%   +54.1%       +489%

The 2.6.18(rhel5) kernel performed significantly
better here than in the many-threaded UDP-mode
which I attribute to the close matching of the
thread and core count and the reasons stated in
the previous paragraph.  CPU consumption of
2.6.9(rhel4) with thirteen active threads
scheduled on eight cores was about the same here
as it was with the large UDP-mode thread count.

Relative to the many-threaded UDP-mode, matching
of thread and core counts seems to help .32(rhel6)
a great deal, but to a lesser degree for .39.

As with UDP-mode, system overhead is substantialy
higher with newer kernels.

-----

Note that some tests were run with packets sockets
and a large thread pool, but not all scenarios
were covered and I find it less interesting than
the small thread pool so it is omitted here.

Have perf reports for all 2.6.39.4 runs and a perf
report for the the packet socket run on
2.6.32(rhel6).  If anyone is interested let me
know and I'll post them.

-----

Overall our application runs best with
2.6.18(rhel5) in all regards excepting a slight
improvement in latency distribution where, despite
higher CPU consumption, the .32 and .39 kernels
are better at 50% CPU load.  Naturally at higher
data rates the newer kernel latency will go to
pieces sooner and the absolute maximum performance
attainable is substantially lower.

Until truly spectacular core counts arrive 2.6.18
remains the kernel of choice.

We would find it attractive if an option to
compile newer kernels with a circa 2.6.18 O(1)
scheduler was made available in the future.  Not a
problem if doing so would disable any number of
dependent kernel features.  Target here is HPC
where in our view less is more and virtuzlization,
resource allocation fairness (not to mention the
SCHED_OTHER priority policy) etc. have little or
no utility.  A shorter scheduler code path-length
and lower cache pressure are more important than
enhanced functionality.  The original O(1)
scheduler appears to handle chains of
related-processing thread hand-offs dramatically
better.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists