linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] RFC: NVME VFIO mediated device [BENCHMARKS]

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]
Message-ID: <ad88c611e6ce0df3d7e0137d7eaa0eff4c862a89.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:50:47 +0200
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Liang Cunming <cunming.liang@...el.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        John Ferlan <jferlan@...hat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Liu Changpeng <changpeng.liu@...el.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Amnon Ilan <ailan@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] RFC: NVME VFIO mediated device [BENCHMARKS]

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:38 +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:52:32PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > This is first round of benchmarks.
> > 
> > The system is Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6128 CPU @ 3.40GHz
> > 
> > The system has 2 numa nodes, but only cpus and memory from node 0 were used to
> > avoid noise from numa.
> > 
> > The SSD is Intel® Optane™ SSD 900P Series, 280 GB version
> > 
> > 
> > https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/123628/intel-optane-ssd-900p-series-280gb-1-2-height-pcie-x4-20nm-3d-xpoint.html
> > 
> > 
> > ** Latency benchmark with no interrupts at all **
> > 
> > spdk was complited with fio plugin in the host and in the guest.
> > spdk was first run in the host
> > then vm was started with one of spdk,pci passthrough, mdev and inside the
> > vm spdk was run with fio plugin.
> > 
> > spdk was taken from my branch on gitlab, and fio was complied from source for
> > 3.4 branch as needed by the spdk fio plugin.
> > 
> > The following spdk command line was used:
> > 
> > $WORK/fio/fio \
> > 	--name=job --runtime=40 --ramp_time=0 --time_based \
> > 	 --filename="trtype=PCIe traddr=$DEVICE_FOR_FIO ns=1" --ioengine=spdk  \
> > 	--direct=1 --rw=randread --bs=4K --cpus_allowed=0 \
> > 	--iodepth=1 --thread
> > 
> > The average values for slat (submission latency), clat (completion latency) and
> > its sum (slat+clat) were noted.
> > 
> > The results:
> > 
> > spdk fio host: 
> > 	573 Mib/s - slat 112.00ns, clat 6.400us, lat 6.52ms
> > 	573 Mib/s - slat 111.50ns, clat 6.406us, lat 6.52ms
> > 
> > 
> > pci passthough host/
> > spdk fio guest
> > 	571 Mib/s - slat 124.56ns, clat 6.422us  lat 6.55ms
> > 	571 Mib/s - slat 122.86ns, clat 6.410us  lat 6.53ms
> > 	570 Mib/s - slat 124.95ns, clat 6.425us  lat 6.55ms
> > 
> > spdk host/
> > spdk fio guest:
> > 	535 Mib/s - slat 125.00ns, clat 6.895us  lat 7.02ms
> > 	534 Mib/s - slat 125.36ns, clat 6.896us  lat 7.02ms
> > 	534 Mib/s - slat 125.82ns, clat 6.892us  lat 7.02ms
> > 
> > mdev host/
> > spdk fio guest:
> > 	534 Mib/s - slat 128.04ns, clat 6.902us  lat 7.03ms
> > 	535 Mib/s - slat 126.97ns, clat 6.900us  lat 7.03ms
> > 	535 Mib/s - slat 127.00ns, clat 6.898us  lat 7.03ms
> > 
> > 
> > As you see, native latency is 6.52ms, pci passthrough barely adds any latency,
> > while both mdev/spdk added about (7.03/2 - 6.52) - 0.51ms/0.50ms of latency.
> 
> Milliseconds is surprising.  The SSD's spec says 10us read/write
> latency.  Did you mean microseconds?
Yea, this is typo - all of this is microseconds.


> 
> > 
> > In addtion to that I added few 'rdtsc' into my mdev driver to strategically
> > capture the cycle count it takes it to do 3 things:
> > 
> > 1. translate a just received command (till it is copied to the hardware
> > submission queue)
> > 
> > 2. receive a completion (divided by the number of completion received in one
> > round of polling)
> > 
> > 3. deliver an interupt to the guest (call to eventfd_signal)
> > 
> > This is not the whole latency as there is also a latency between the point the
> > submission entry is written and till it is visible on the polling cpu, plus
> > latency till polling cpu gets to the code which reads the submission entry,
> > and of course latency of interrupt delivery, but the above measurements mostly
> > capture the latency I can control.
> > 
> > The results are:
> > 
> > commands translated : avg cycles: 459.844     avg time(usec): 0.135        
> > commands completed  : avg cycles: 354.61      avg time(usec): 0.104        
> > interrupts sent     : avg cycles: 590.227     avg time(usec): 0.174
> > 
> > avg time total: 0.413 usec
> > 
> > All measurmenets done in the host kernel. the time calculated using tsc_khz
> > kernel variable.
> > 
> > The biggest take from this is that both spdk and my driver are very fast and
> > overhead is just a  thousand of cpu cycles give it or take.
> 
> Nice!
> 
> Stefan


Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky