Message-ID: <20191128121205.65c8dea1@carbon>
Date:   Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:12:05 +0100
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Marek Majkowski' <marek@...udflare.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: epoll_wait() performance

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:04:12 +0000
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:

> From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > Sent: 27 November 2019 15:48
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:39:44 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> >   
> > > ...  
> > > > > While using recvmmsg() to read multiple messages might seem a good idea, it is much
> > > > > slower than recv() when there is only one message (even recvmsg() is a lot slower).
> > > > > (I'm not sure why the code paths are so slow, I suspect it is all the copy_from_user()
> > > > > and faffing with the user iov[].)
> > > > >
> > > > > So using poll() we repoll the fd after calling recv() to find is there is a second message.
> > > > > However the second poll has a significant performance cost (but less than using recvmmsg()).  
> > > >
> > > > That sounds wrong. Single recvmmsg(), even when receiving only a
> > > > single message, should be faster than two syscalls - recv() and
> > > > poll().  
> > >
> > > My suspicion is the extra two copy_from_user() needed for each recvmsg are a
> > > significant overhead, most likely due to the crappy code that tries to stop
> > > the kernel buffer being overrun.
> > >
> > > I need to run the tests on a system with a 'home built' kernel to see how much
> > > difference this make (by seeing how much slower duplicating the copy makes it).
> > >
> > > The system call cost of poll() gets factored over a reasonable number of sockets.
> > > So doing poll() on a socket with no data is a lot faster that the setup for recvmsg
> > > even allowing for looking up the fd.
> > >
> > > This could be fixed by an extra flag to recvmmsg() to indicate that you only really
> > > expect one message and to call the poll() function before each subsequent receive.
> > >
> > > There is also the 'reschedule' that Eric added to the loop in recvmmsg.
> > > I don't know how much that actually costs.
> > > In this case the process is likely to be running at a RT priority and pinned to a cpu.
> > > In some cases the cpu is also reserved (at boot time) so that 'random' other code can't use it.
> > >
> > > We really do want to receive all these UDP packets in a timely manner.
> > > Although very low latency isn't itself an issue.
> > > The data is telephony audio with (typically) one packet every 20ms.
> > > The code only looks for packets every 10ms - that helps no end since, in principle,
> > > only a single poll()/epoll_wait() call (on all the sockets) is needed every 10ms.  
> > 
> > I have a simple udp_sink tool[1] that cycle through the different
> > receive socket system calls.  I gave it a quick spin on a F31 kernel
> > 5.3.12-300.fc31.x86_64 on a mlx5 100G interface, and I'm very surprised
> > to see a significant regression/slowdown for recvMmsg.
> > 
> > $ sudo ./udp_sink --port 9 --repeat 1 --count $((10**7))
> >           	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
> > recvMmsg/32	run:  0	10000000	1461.41	684270.96	5261	18	 demux:1
> > recvmsg   	run:  0	10000000	889.82	1123824.84	3203	18	 demux:1
> > read      	run:  0	10000000	974.81	1025841.68	3509	18	 demux:1
> > recvfrom  	run:  0	10000000	1056.51	946513.44	3803	18	 demux:1
> > 
> > Normal recvmsg almost have double performance that recvmmsg.
> >  recvMmsg/32 = 684,270 pps
> >  recvmsg     = 1,123,824 pps  
> 
> Can you test recv() as well?

Sure: https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/commit/9e3c8b86a2d662

$ sudo taskset -c 1 ./udp_sink --port 9  --count $((10**6*2))
          	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
recvMmsg/32  	run:  0	 2000000	653.29	1530704.29	2351	18	 demux:1
recvmsg   	run:  0	 2000000	631.01	1584760.06	2271	18	 demux:1
read      	run:  0	 2000000	582.24	1717518.16	2096	18	 demux:1
recvfrom  	run:  0	 2000000	547.26	1827269.12	1970	18	 demux:1
recv      	run:  0	 2000000	547.37	1826930.39	1970	18	 demux:1

> I think it might be faster than read().

Slightly, but same speed as recvfrom.

Strangely recvMmsg is not that bad in this testrun, and it is on the
same kernel 5.3.12-300.fc31.x86_64 and hardware.  I have CPU pinned
udp_sink, as it if jumps to the CPU doing RX-NAPI it will be fighting
for CPU time with softirq (which have Eric mitigated a bit), and
results are bad and look like this:

[broadwell src]$ sudo taskset -c 5 ./udp_sink --port 9  --count $((10**6*2))
          	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
recvMmsg/32  	run:  0	 2000000	1252.44	798439.60	4508	18	 demux:1
recvmsg   	run:  0	 2000000	1917.65	521470.72	6903	18	 demux:1
read      	run:  0	 2000000	1817.31	550263.37	6542	18	 demux:1
recvfrom  	run:  0	 2000000	1742.44	573909.46	6272	18	 demux:1
recv      	run:  0	 2000000	1741.51	574213.08	6269	18	 demux:1


> [...]
> > Found some old results (approx v4.10-rc1):
> > 
> > [brouer@...lake src]$ sudo taskset -c 2 ./udp_sink --count $((10**7)) --port 9 --connect
> >  recvMmsg/32    run: 0 10000000 537.89  1859106.74      2155    21559353816
> >  recvmsg        run: 0 10000000 552.69  1809344.44      2215    22152468673
> >  read           run: 0 10000000 476.65  2097970.76      1910    19104864199
> >  recvfrom       run: 0 10000000 450.76  2218492.60      1806    18066972794  
> 
> That is probably nearer what I am seeing on a 4.15 Ubuntu 18.04 kernel.
> recvmmsg() and recvmsg() are similar - but both a lot slower then recv().

Notice tool can also test connect UDP sockets, which is done in above.
I did a quick run with --connect:

$ sudo taskset -c 1 ./udp_sink --port 9  --count $((10**6*2)) --connect
          	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
recvMmsg/32  	run:  0	 2000000	500.72	1997107.02	1802	18	 demux:1 c:1
recvmsg   	run:  0	 2000000	662.52	1509380.46	2385	18	 demux:1 c:1
read      	run:  0	 2000000	613.46	1630103.14	2208	18	 demux:1 c:1
recvfrom  	run:  0	 2000000	577.71	1730974.34	2079	18	 demux:1 c:1
recv      	run:  0	 2000000	578.27	1729305.35	2081	18	 demux:1 c:1

And now, recvMmsg is actually the fastest...?!


p.s.
DISPLAIMER: Do notice that this udp_sink tool is a network-overload
micro-benchmark, that does not represent the use-case you are
describing.
-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists