linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the throughput

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:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:52:46 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the
 throughput

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> This series tries to increase the throughput of virtio-vsock with slight
> changes:
>  - patch 1/4: reduces the number of credit update messages sent to the
>               transmitter
>  - patch 2/4: allows the host to split packets on multiple buffers,
>               in this way, we can remove the packet size limit to
>               VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE
>  - patch 3/4: uses VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE as the max packet size
>               allowed
>  - patch 4/4: increases RX buffer size to 64 KiB (affects only host->guest)
> 
> RFC:
>  - maybe patch 4 can be replaced with multiple queues with different
>    buffer sizes or using EWMA to adapt the buffer size to the traffic
> 
>  - as Jason suggested in a previous thread [1] I'll evaluate to use
>    virtio-net as transport, but I need to understand better how to
>    interface with it, maybe introducing sk_buff in virtio-vsock.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Here some benchmarks step by step. I used iperf3 [2] modified with VSOCK
> support:
> 
>                         host -> guest [Gbps]
> pkt_size    before opt.   patch 1   patches 2+3   patch 4
>   64            0.060       0.102       0.102       0.096
>   256           0.22        0.40        0.40        0.36
>   512           0.42        0.82        0.85        0.74
>   1K            0.7         1.6         1.6         1.5
>   2K            1.5         3.0         3.1         2.9
>   4K            2.5         5.2         5.3         5.3
>   8K            3.9         8.4         8.6         8.8
>   16K           6.6        11.1        11.3        12.8
>   32K           9.9        15.8        15.8        18.1
>   64K          13.5        17.4        17.7        21.4
>   128K         17.9        19.0        19.0        23.6
>   256K         18.0        19.4        19.8        24.4
>   512K         18.4        19.6        20.1        25.3
> 
>                         guest -> host [Gbps]
> pkt_size    before opt.   patch 1   patches 2+3
>   64            0.088       0.100       0.101
>   256           0.35        0.36        0.41
>   512           0.70        0.74        0.73
>   1K            1.1         1.3         1.3
>   2K            2.4         2.4         2.6
>   4K            4.3         4.3         4.5
>   8K            7.3         7.4         7.6
>   16K           9.2         9.6        11.1
>   32K           8.3         8.9        18.1
>   64K           8.3         8.9        25.4
>   128K          7.2         8.7        26.7
>   256K          7.7         8.4        24.9
>   512K          7.7         8.5        25.0
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano

I simply love it that you have analysed the individual impact of
each patch! Great job!

For comparison's sake, it could be IMHO benefitial to add a column
with virtio-net+vhost-net performance.

This will both give us an idea about whether the vsock layer introduces
inefficiencies, and whether the virtio-net idea has merit.

One other comment: it makes sense to test with disabling smap
mitigations (boot host and guest with nosmap).  No problem with also
testing the default smap path, but I think you will discover that the
performance impact of smap hardening being enabled is often severe for
such benchmarks.


> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg531783.html
> [2] https://github.com/stefano-garzarella/iperf/
> 
> Stefano Garzarella (4):
>   vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages
>   vhost/vsock: split packets to send using multiple buffers
>   vsock/virtio: change the maximum packet size allowed
>   vsock/virtio: increase RX buffer size to 64 KiB
> 
>  drivers/vhost/vsock.c                   | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  include/linux/virtio_vsock.h            |  3 ++-
>  net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 18 +++++++++----
>  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.20.1