linux-kernel - Re: Performance impact in networking data path tests in Linux 5.5 Kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtByX6e0wQPYxgoYVUaiTfJPcTvrt-9W7CeA=V9aC_kH_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:10:28 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Rajender M <manir@...are.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Performance impact in networking data path tests in Linux 5.5 Kernel

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 12:45, Rajender M <manir@...are.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your response, Vincent.
> Just curious to know, if there are any room for optimizing
> the additional CPU cost.

That's difficult to say, the additional cost is probably link to how
the CPU is involved in the data path. IIUC your results, there is +30%
CPUs for +20% of throughput for the 10GB NIC but only +10% CPU for
+25%  of throughput for the 40GB which might have more things done by
HW and needs less action from CPU

>
>
> On 26/02/20, 3:18 PM, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>     Hi Rajender,
>
>     On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 06:46, Rajender M <manir@...are.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > As part of VMware's performance regression testing for Linux Kernel upstream
>     >  releases, when comparing Linux 5.5 kernel against Linux 5.4 kernel, we noticed
>     > 20% improvement in networking throughput performance at the cost of a 30%
>     > increase in the CPU utilization.
>
>     Thanks for testing and sharing results with us. It's always
>     interesting to get feedbacks from various tests cases
>
>     >
>     > After performing the bisect between 5.4 and 5.5, we identified the root cause
>     > of this behaviour to be a scheduling change from Vincent Guittot's
>     > 2ab4092fc82d ("sched/fair: Spread out tasks evenly when not overloaded").
>     >
>     > The impacted testcases are TCP_STREAM SEND & RECV – on both small
>     > (8K socket & 256B message) & large (64K socket & 16K message) packet sizes.
>     >
>     > We backed out Vincent's commit & reran our networking tests and found that
>     > the performance were similar to 5.4 kernel - improvements in networking tests
>     > were no more.
>     >
>     > In our current network performance testing, we use Intel 10G NIC to evaluate
>     > all Linux Kernel releases. In order to confirm that the impact is also seen in
>     > higher bandwidth NIC, we repeated the same test cases with Intel 40G and
>     > we were able to reproduce the same behaviour - 25% improvements in
>     > throughput with 10% more CPU consumption.
>     >
>     > The overall results indicate that the new scheduler change has introduced
>     > much better network throughput performance at the cost of incremental
>     > CPU usage. This can be seen as expected behavior because now the
>     > TCP streams are evenly spread across all the CPUs and eventually drives
>     > more network packets, with additional CPU consumption.
>     >
>     >
>     > We have also confirmed this theory by parsing the ESX stats for 5.4 and 5.5
>     > kernels in a 4vCPU VM running 8 TCP streams - as shown below;
>     >
>     > 5.4 kernel:
>     >   "2132149": {"id": 2132149, "used": 94.37, "ready": 0.01, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-0:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132151": {"id": 2132151, "used": 0.13, "ready": 0.00, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-1:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132152": {"id": 2132152, "used": 9.07, "ready": 0.03, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-2:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132153": {"id": 2132153, "used": 34.77, "ready": 0.01, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-3:rhel7x64-0",
>     >
>     > 5.5 kernel:
>     >   "2132041": {"id": 2132041, "used": 55.70, "ready": 0.01, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-0:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132043": {"id": 2132043, "used": 47.53, "ready": 0.01, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-1:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132044": {"id": 2132044, "used": 77.81, "ready": 0.00, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-2:rhel7x64-0",
>     >   "2132045": {"id": 2132045, "used": 57.11, "ready": 0.02, "cstp": 0.00, "name": "vmx-vcpu-3:rhel7x64-0",
>     >
>     > Note, "used %" in above stats for 5.5 kernel is evenly distributed across all vCPUs.
>     >
>     > On the whole, this change should be seen as a significant improvement for
>     > most customers.
>     >
>     > Rajender M
>     > Performance Engineering
>     > VMware, Inc.
>     >
>
>