Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:09:49 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
CC:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] NUMA aware scheduling per vhost thread patch

Hi:

Thanks for the work and it looks very reasonable, some questions below.

On 03/23/2012 07:48 AM, Shirley Ma wrote:
> Sorry for being late to submit this patch. I have spent lots of time
> trying to find the best approach. This effort is still going on...
>
> This patch is built against net-next tree.
>
> This is an experimental RFC patch. The purpose of this patch is to
> address KVM networking scalability and NUMA scheduling issue.

Need also test for non-NUMA machine, I see that you just choose the cpu 
that initiates the work for non-numa machine which seems sub optimal.
> The existing implementation of vhost creats a vhost thread per-device
> (virtio_net) based. RX and TX work of a VMs per-device is handled by
> same vhost thread.
>
> One of the limitation of this implementation is with increasing the
> number VMs or the number of virtio-net interfces, more vhost threads are
> created, it will consume more kernel resources, and induce more threads
> context switches/scheduling overhead. We noticed that the KVM network
> performance doesn't scale with increasing number of VMs.
>
> The other limitation is to have single vhost thread to process both RX
> and TX, the work will be blocked. So we create this per cpu vhost thread
> implementation. The number of vhost cpu threads is limited to the number
> of cpus on the host.
>
> To address these limitations, we are propsing a per-cpu vhost thread
> model where the number of vhost threads are limited and equal to the
> number of online cpus on the host.

The number of vhost thread needs more consideration. Consider that we 
have a 1024 cores host with a card have 16 tx/rx queues, do we really 
need 1024 vhost threads?
>
> Based on our testing experience, the vcpus can be scheduled across cpu
> sockets even when the number of vcpus is smaller than the number of
> cores per cpu socket and there is no other  activities besides KVM
> networking workload. We found that if vhost thread is scheduled on the
> same socket as the work is received, the performance will be better.
>
> So in this per cpu vhost thread implementation, a vhost thread is
> selected dynamically based on where the TX/RX work is initiated. A vhost
> thread on the same cpu socket is selected but not on the same cpu as the
> vcpu/interrupt thread that initizated the TX/RX work.
>
> When we test this RFC patch, the other interesting thing we found is the
> performance results also seem related to NIC flow steering. We are
> spending time on evaluate different NICs flow director implementation
> now. We will enhance this patch based on our findings later.
>
> We have tried different scheduling: per-device based, per vq based and
> per work type (tx_kick, rx_kick, tx_net, rx_net) based vhost scheduling,
> we found that so far the per vq based scheduling is good enough for now.

Could you please explain more about those scheduling strategies? Does 
per-device based means let a dedicated vhost thread to handle all work 
from that vhost device? As you mentioned, maybe an improvement of the 
scheduling to take flow steering info (queue mapping, rxhash etc.) of 
skb in host into account.
>
> We also tried different algorithm to select which cpu vhost thread will
> running on a specific cpu socket: avg_load balance, and randomly...

May worth to account the out-of-oder packet during the test as for a 
single stream as different cpu/vhost/physical queue may be chose to do 
the packet transmission/reception?
>
> > From our test results, we found that the scalability has been
> significantly improved. And this patch is also helpful for small packets
> performance.
>
> Hoever, we are seeing some regressions in a local guest to guest
> scenario on a 8 cpu NUMA system.
>
> In one case, 24 VMs 256 bytes tcp_stream test shows it has improved from
> 810Mb/s to 9.1Gb/s. :)
> (We created two local VMs, and each VM has 2 vcpus. W/o this patch, the
> number of threads is 4 vcpus + 2 vhosts = 6, w/i this patch is 4 vcpus +
> 8 vhosts = 12. It causes more context switches. When I change the
> scheduling to use 2-4 vhost threads, the regressions are gone. I am
> continue investigation on how to make small number of VMs, local guest
> to gues performance better. Once I find the clue, I will share here.)
>
> The cpu hotplug support hasn't in place yet. I will post it later.

Another question is why not just using workqueue? It has full support 
for cpu hotplug and allow more polices.
>
> Since we have per cpu vhost thread, each vhost thread will handle
> multiple vqs, so we will be able to reduce/remove vq notification when
> the work is heavy loaded in future.

Does this issue still exist if event index is used? If vhost does not 
publish new used index, guest would not kick again.
>
> Here is my test results for remote host to guest test: tcp_rrs, udp_rrs,
> tcp_stream with guest has 2 vpus, host has two cpu socket, each socket
> has 4 cores.
>
> TCP_STREAM	256	512	1K	2K	4K	8K	16K
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Original
> H->Guest	2501	4238	4744	5256	7203	6975	5799 		Patch
> H->Guest	1676	2290	3149	8026	8439	8283	8216	
> 								
> Original
> Guest->H	744	1773	5675	1397	8207	7296	8117	
> Patch
> Guest->Host	1041	1386	5407	7057	8298	8127	8241

Looks like there's some noise in the result, the throughput of "original 
guest -> Host 2K" looks too low. And some strange is that I see 
regressions of packet transmission of guest when testing this patch. ( 
Guest to Local Host TCP_STREAM in a NUMA machine).
>
> 60 instances TCP_RRs: Patch 150K trans/s vs. 91K trans/sec
> 65%  improved with taskset vcpus on the same socket
> 60 instances UDP_RRs: Patch 172K trans/s vs. 103K trans/s
> 67%  improved with taskset vcpus on the same socket
>
> Tom has run 1VM to 24 VMs test for different work. He will post it here
> soon.
>
> If the host scheduler ensures that the VM's vcpus are not scheduled to
> another socket (i.e. cpu mask the vcpus on same socket) then the
> performance will be better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma<xma@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar<krkumar2@...ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Tom Lendacky<toml@...ibm.com>
> ---
>
>   drivers/vhost/net.c                  |   26 ++-
>   drivers/vhost/vhost.c                |  289
> +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   drivers/vhost/vhost.h                |   16 ++-
>   3 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
>
> --
> 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

--
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