Message-ID: <20200709133438-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:37:54 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:46:13PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:10 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020/7/1 下午9:04, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:40 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2020/7/1 下午6:43, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:15 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > >>> <eperezma@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:29 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > >>>>>>>> <eperezma@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > >>>>>>>>> <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now.
> > >>>>>>>>>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Konrad.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I tested this version of the patch:
> > >>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in
> > >>>>>>>>> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html)
> > >>>>>>>>> and kernel pktgen. No latency tests were performed by me. Maybe it is
> > >>>>>>>>> interesting to perform a latency test or just a different set of tests
> > >>>>>>>>> over a recent version.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>>>>> I have repeated the tests with v9, and results are a little bit different:
> > >>>>>>>> * If I test opening it with testpmd, I see no change between versions
> > >>>>>>> OK that is testpmd on guest, right? And vhost-net on the host?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Michael.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No, sorry, as described in
> > >>>>>> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html.
> > >>>>>> But I could add to test it in the guest too.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> These kinds of raw packets "bursts" do not show performance
> > >>>>>> differences, but I could test deeper if you think it would be worth
> > >>>>>> it.
> > >>>>> Oh ok, so this is without guest, with virtio-user.
> > >>>>> It might be worth checking dpdk within guest too just
> > >>>>> as another data point.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Ok, I will do it!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest
> > >>>>>>>> using a linux bridge in the host:
> > >>>>>>> And here I guess you mean virtio-net in the guest kernel?
> > >>>>>> Yes, sorry: Two virtio-net interfaces connected with a linux bridge in
> > >>>>>> the host. More precisely:
> > >>>>>> * Adding one of the interfaces to another namespace, assigning it an
> > >>>>>> IP, and starting netserver there.
> > >>>>>> * Assign another IP in the range manually to the other virtual net
> > >>>>>> interface, and start the desired test there.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If you think it would be better to perform then differently please let me know.
> > >>>>> Not sure why you bother with namespaces since you said you are
> > >>>>> using L2 bridging. I guess it's unimportant.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Sorry, I think I should have provided more context about that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The only reason to use namespaces is to force the traffic of these
> > >>>> netperf tests to go through the external bridge. To test netperf
> > >>>> different possibilities than the testpmd (or pktgen or others "blast
> > >>>> of frames unconditionally" tests).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This way, I make sure that is the same version of everything in the
> > >>>> guest, and is a little bit easier to manage cpu affinity, start and
> > >>>> stop testing...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I could use a different VM for sending and receiving, but I find this
> > >>>> way a faster one and it should not introduce a lot of noise. I can
> > >>>> test with two VM if you think that this use of network namespace
> > >>>> introduces too much noise.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>     - netperf UDP_STREAM shows a performance increase of 1.8, almost
> > >>>>>>>> doubling performance. This gets lower as frame size increase.
> > >>> Regarding UDP_STREAM:
> > >>> * with event_idx=on: The performance difference is reduced a lot if
> > >>> applied affinity properly (manually assigning CPU on host/guest and
> > >>> setting IRQs on guest), making them perform equally with and without
> > >>> the patch again. Maybe the batching makes the scheduler perform
> > >>> better.
> > >>
> > >> Note that for UDP_STREAM, the result is pretty trick to be analyzed. E.g
> > >> setting a sndbuf for TAP may help for the performance (reduce the drop).
> > >>
> > > Ok, will add that to the test. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Actually, it's better to skip the UDP_STREAM test since:
> >
> > - My understanding is very few application is using raw UDP stream
> > - It's hard to analyze (usually you need to count the drop ratio etc)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>     - rests of the test goes noticeably worse: UDP_RR goes from ~6347
> > >>>>>>>> transactions/sec to 5830
> > >>> * Regarding UDP_RR, TCP_STREAM, and TCP_RR, proper CPU pinning makes
> > >>> them perform similarly again, only a very small performance drop
> > >>> observed. It could be just noise.
> > >>> ** All of them perform better than vanilla if event_idx=off, not sure
> > >>> why. I can try to repeat them if you suspect that can be a test
> > >>> failure.
> > >>>
> > >>> * With testpmd and event_idx=off, if I send from the VM to host, I see
> > >>> a performance increment especially in small packets. The buf api also
> > >>> increases performance compared with only batching: Sending the minimum
> > >>> packet size in testpmd makes pps go from 356kpps to 473 kpps.
> > >>
> > >> What's your setup for this. The number looks rather low. I'd expected
> > >> 1-2 Mpps at least.
> > >>
> > > Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2 NUMA nodes of 16G memory
> > > each, and no device assigned to the NUMA node I'm testing in. Too low
> > > for testpmd AF_PACKET driver too?
> >
> >
> > I don't test AF_PACKET, I guess it should use the V3 which mmap based
> > zerocopy interface.
> >
> > And it might worth to check the cpu utilization of vhost thread. It's
> > required to stress it as 100% otherwise there could be a bottleneck
> > somewhere.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>> Sending
> > >>> 1024 length UDP-PDU makes it go from 570kpps to 64 kpps.
> > >>>
> > >>> Something strange I observe in these tests: I get more pps the bigger
> > >>> the transmitted buffer size is. Not sure why.
> > >>>
> > >>> ** Sending from the host to the VM does not make a big change with the
> > >>> patches in small packets scenario (minimum, 64 bytes, about 645
> > >>> without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets
> > >>> are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits,
> > >>
> > >> I think you meant bytes?
> > >>
> > > Yes, sorry.
> > >
> > >>>    it goes
> > >>> from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it
> > >>> gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement.
> > >>>
> > >>> * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in
> > >>> both directions.
> > >>>
> > >>> All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a
> > >>> host's tap interface (<interface type='ethernet'> in xml),
> > >>
> > >> What DPDK driver did you use in the test (AF_PACKET?).
> > >>
> > > Yes, both testpmd are using AF_PACKET driver.
> >
> >
> > I see, using AF_PACKET means extra layers of issues need to be analyzed
> > which is probably not good.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>> with a
> > >>> testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the
> > >>> receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts,
> > >>> and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to
> > >>> schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors.
> > >>
> > >> My feeling is that if we start from simple setup, it would be more
> > >> easier as a start. E.g start without an VM.
> > >>
> > >> 1) TX: testpmd(txonly) -> virtio-user -> vhost_net -> XDP_DROP on TAP
> > >> 2) RX: pkgetn -> TAP -> vhost_net -> testpmd(rxonly)
> > >>
> > > Got it. Is there a reason to prefer pktgen over testpmd?
> >
> >
> > I think the reason is using testpmd you must use a userspace kernel
> > interface (AF_PACKET), and it could not be as fast as pktgen since:
> >
> > - it talks directly to xmit of TAP
> > - skb can be cloned
> >
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Here it is the result of the tests. Details on [1].
> 
> Tx:
> ===
> 
> For tx packets it seems that the batching patch makes things a little
> bit worse, but the buf_api outperforms baseline by a 7%:
> 
> * We start with a baseline of 4208772.571 pps and 269361444.6 bytes/s [2].
> * When we add the batching, I see a small performance decrease:
> 4133292.308 and 264530707.7 bytes/s.
> * However, the buf api it outperform the baseline: 4551319.631pps,
> 291205178.1 bytes/s
> 
> I don't have numbers on the receiver side since it is just a XDP_DROP.
> I think it would be interesting to see them.
> 
> Rx:
> ===
> 
> Regarding Rx, the reverse is observed: a small performance increase is
> observed with batching (~2%), but buf_api makes tests perform equally
> to baseline.
> 
> pktgen was called using pktgen_sample01_simple.sh, with the environment:
> DEV="$tap_name" F_THREAD=1 DST_MAC=$MAC_ADDR COUNT=$((2500000*25))
> SKB_CLONE=$((2**31))
> 
> And testpmd is the same as Tx but with forward-mode=rxonly.
> 
> Pktgen reports:
> Baseline: 1853025pps 622Mb/sec (622616400bps) errors: 7915231
> Batch: 1891404pps 635Mb/sec (635511744bps) errors: 4926093
> Buf_api: 1844008pps 619Mb/sec (619586688bps) errors: 47766692
> 
> Testpmd reports:
> Baseline: 1854448pps, 860464156 bps. [3]
> Batch: 1892844.25pps, 878280070bps.
> Buf_api: 1846139.75pps, 856609120bps.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1]
> Testpmd options: -l 1,3
> --vdev=virtio_user0,mac=01:02:03:04:05:06,path=/dev/vhost-net,queue_size=1024
> -- --auto-start --stats-period 5 --tx-offloads="$TX_OFFLOADS"
> --rx-offloads="$RX_OFFLOADS" --txd=4096 --rxd=4096 --burst=512
> --forward-mode=txonly
> 
> Where offloads were obtained manually running with
> --[tr]x-offloads=0x8fff and examining testpmd response:
> declare -r RX_OFFLOADS=0x81d
> declare -r TX_OFFLOADS=0x802d
> 
> All of the tests results are an average of at least 3 samples of
> testpmd, discarding the obvious deviations at start/end (like warming
> up or waiting for pktgen to start). The result of pktgen is directly
> c&p from its output.
> 
> The numbers do not change very much from one stats printing to another
> of testpmd.
> 
> [2] Obtained subtracting each accumulated tx-packets from one stats
> print to the previous one. If we attend testpmd output about Tx-pps,
> it counts a little bit less performance, but it follows the same
> pattern:
> 
> Testpmd pps/bps stats:
> Baseline: 3510826.25 pps, 1797887912bps = 224735989bytes/sec
> Batch: 3448515.571pps, 1765640226bps = 220705028.3bytes/sec
> Buf api: 3794115.333pps, 1942587286bps = 242823410.8bytes/sec
> 
> [3] This is obtained using the rx-pps/rx-bps report of testpmd.
> 
> Seems strange to me that the relation between pps/bps is ~336 this
> time, and between accumulated pkts/accumulated bytes is ~58. Also, the
> relation between them is not even close to 8.
> 
> However, testpmd shows a lot of absolute packets received. If we see
> the received packets in a period subtracting from the previous one,
> testpmd tells that receive more pps than pktgen tx-pps:
> Baseline: ~2222668.667pps 128914784.3bps.
> Batch: 2269260.933pps, 131617134.9bps
> Buf_api: 2213226.467pps, 128367135.9bp

How about playing with the batch size? Make it a mod parameter instead
of the hard coded 64, and measure for all values 1 to 64 ...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists