Message-ID: <20110309071558.GA25757@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:15:58 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, steved@...ibm.com,
	Tom Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets - continued

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network 
> performance problem in KVM.  I have a different setup than what Steve D. was 
> using so I re-baselined things on the kvm.git kernel on both the host and 
> guest with a 10GbE adapter.  I also made use of the virtio-stats patch.
> 
> The virtual machine has 2 vCPUs, 8GB of memory and two virtio network adapters 
> (the first connected to a 1GbE adapter and a LAN, the second connected to a 
> 10GbE adapter that is direct connected to another system with the same 10GbE 
> adapter) running the kvm.git kernel.  The test was a TCP_RR test with 100 
> connections from a baremetal client to the KVM guest using a 256 byte message 
> size in both directions.
> 
> I used the uperf tool to do this after verifying the results against netperf.  
> Uperf allows the specification of the number of connections as a parameter in 
> an XML file as opposed to launching, in this case, 100 separate instances of 
> netperf.
> 
> Here is the baseline for baremetal using 2 physical CPUs:
>   Txn Rate: 206,389.59 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 410,048 Pkts/Sec
>   TxCPU: 7.88%  RxCPU: 99.41%
> 
> To be sure to get consistent results with KVM I disabled the hyperthreads, 
> pinned the qemu-kvm process, vCPUs, vhost thread and ethernet adapter 
> interrupts (this resulted in runs that differed by only about 2% from lowest 
> to highest).  The fact that pinning is required to get consistent results is a 
> different problem that we'll have to look into later...
> 
> Here is the KVM baseline (average of six runs):
>   Txn Rate: 87,070.34 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 172,992 Pkts/Sec
>   Exits: 148,444.58 Exits/Sec
>   TxCPU: 2.40%  RxCPU: 99.35%
> About 42% of baremetal.
> 

Can you add interrupt stats as well please?

> empty.  So I coded a quick patch to delay freeing of the used Tx buffers until 
> more than half the ring was used (I did not test this under a stream condition 
> so I don't know if this would have a negative impact).  Here are the results 
> from delaying the freeing of used Tx buffers (average of six runs):
>   Txn Rate: 90,886.19 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 180,571 Pkts/Sec
>   Exits: 142,681.67 Exits/Sec
>   TxCPU: 2.78%  RxCPU: 99.36%
> About a 4% increase over baseline and about 44% of baremetal.

Hmm, I am not sure what you mean by delaying freeing.
I think we do have a problem that free_old_xmit_skbs
tries to flush out the ring aggressively:
it always polls until the ring is empty,
so there could be bursts of activity where
we spend a lot of time flushing the old entries
before e.g. sending an ack, resulting in
latency bursts.

Generally we'll need some smarter logic,
but with indirect at the moment we can just poll
a single packet after we post a new one, and be done with it.
Is your patch something like the patch below?
Could you try mine as well please?


> This spread out the kick_notify but still resulted in alot of them.  I decided 
> to build on the delayed Tx buffer freeing and code up an "ethtool" like 
> coalescing patch in order to delay the kick_notify until there were at least 5 
> packets on the ring or 2000 usecs, whichever occurred first.  Here are the 
> results of delaying the kick_notify (average of six runs):
>   Txn Rate: 107,106.36 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 212,796 Pkts/Sec
>   Exits: 102,587.28 Exits/Sec
>   TxCPU: 3.03%  RxCPU: 99.33%
> About a 23% increase over baseline and about 52% of baremetal.
> 
> Running the perf command against the guest I noticed almost 19% of the time 
> being spent in _raw_spin_lock.  Enabling lockstat in the guest showed alot of 
> contention in the "irq_desc_lock_class". Pinning the virtio1-input interrupt 
> to a single cpu in the guest and re-running the last test resulted in 
> tremendous gains (average of six runs):
>   Txn Rate: 153,696.59 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 305,358 Pkgs/Sec
>   Exits: 62,603.37 Exits/Sec
>   TxCPU: 3.73%  RxCPU: 98.52%
> About a 77% increase over baseline and about 74% of baremetal.
> 
> Vhost is receiving a lot of notifications for packets that are to be 
> transmitted (over 60% of the packets generate a kick_notify).  Also, it looks 
> like vhost is sending a lot of notifications for packets it has received 
> before the guest can get scheduled to disable notifications and begin 
> processing the packets

Hmm, is this really what happens to you?  The effect would be that guest
gets an interrupt while notifications are disabled in guest, right? Could
you add a counter and check this please?

Another possible thing to try would be these old patches to publish used index
from guest to make sure this double interrupt does not happen:
 [PATCHv2] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself
 [PATCHv2] vhost-net: utilize PUBLISH_USED_IDX feature

> resulting in some lock contention in the guest (and 
> high interrupt rates).
> 
> Some thoughts for the transmit path...  can vhost be enhanced to do some 
> adaptive polling so that the number of kick_notify events are reduced and 
> replaced by kick_no_notify events?

Worth a try.

> 
> Comparing the transmit path to the receive path, the guest disables 
> notifications after the first kick and vhost re-enables notifications after 
> completing processing of the tx ring.

Is this really what happens? I though the host disables notifications
after the first kick.

>  Can a similar thing be done for the 
> receive path?  Once vhost sends the first notification for a received packet 
> it can disable notifications and let the guest re-enable notifications when it 
> has finished processing the receive ring.  Also, can the virtio-net driver do 
> some adaptive polling (or does napi take care of that for the guest)?

Worth a try. I don't think napi does anything like this.

> Running the same workload on the same configuration with a different 
> hypervisor results in performance that is almost equivalent to baremetal 
> without doing any pinning.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom Lendacky


There's no need to flush out all used buffers
before we post more for transmit: with indirect,
just a single one is enough. Without indirect we'll
need more possibly, but just for testing this should
be enough.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>

---

Note: untested.

diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
index 82dba5a..ebe3337 100644
--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
@@ -514,11 +514,11 @@ static unsigned int free_old_xmit_skbs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 	unsigned int len, tot_sgs = 0;
 
-	while ((skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len)) != NULL) {
+	if ((skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len)) != NULL) {
 		pr_debug("Sent skb %p\n", skb);
 		vi->dev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
 		vi->dev->stats.tx_packets++;
-		tot_sgs += skb_vnet_hdr(skb)->num_sg;
+		tot_sgs = 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS;
 		dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
 	}
 	return tot_sgs;
@@ -576,9 +576,6 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
 	struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
 	int capacity;
 
-	/* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */
-	free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
-
 	/* Try to transmit */
 	capacity = xmit_skb(vi, skb);
 
@@ -605,6 +602,10 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
 	skb_orphan(skb);
 	nf_reset(skb);
 
+	/* Free up any old buffers so we can queue new ones. */
+	if (capacity < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
+		capacity += free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
+
 	/* Apparently nice girls don't return TX_BUSY; stop the queue
 	 * before it gets out of hand.  Naturally, this wastes entries. */
 	if (capacity < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists