| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <530D814E.2080708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:53:18 +0800 From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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. > Will measure this. >> 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? > Yes it should. I just reuse the VHOST_MAX_PEND since it was there for a long time. > 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? > Agree, vhost net removal should not be blocked by a skb. But since the skbs could be queued may places, just destroy them may need extra locks. Haven't thought this deeply, but another possible sloution is to rcuify destructor_arg and assign it to NULL during vhost_net removing. >> --- >> 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 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