netdev - Re: [net-next RFC V5 3/5] virtio: intorduce an API to set affinity for a virtqueue

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5012A7D3.4040800@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:38:11 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, mst@...hat.com,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
CC:	mashirle@...ibm.com, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jwhan@...ewood.snu.ac.kr,
	davem@...emloft.net, kvm@...r.kernel.org, sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V5 3/5] virtio: intorduce an API to set affinity
 for a virtqueue

Il 05/07/2012 12:29, Jason Wang ha scritto:
> Sometimes, virtio device need to configure irq affiniry hint to maximize the
> performance. Instead of just exposing the irq of a virtqueue, this patch
> introduce an API to set the affinity for a virtqueue.
> 
> The api is best-effort, the affinity hint may not be set as expected due to
> platform support, irq sharing or irq type. Currently, only pci method were
> implemented and we set the affinity according to:
> 
> - if device uses INTX, we just ignore the request
> - if device has per vq vector, we force the affinity hint
> - if the virtqueues share MSI, make the affinity OR over all affinities
>  requested
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>

Hmm, I don't see any benefit from this patch, I need to use
irq_set_affinity (which however is not exported) to actually bind IRQs
to CPUs.  Example:

with irq_set_affinity_hint:
 43:   89  107  100   97   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 44:  178  195  268  199   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 45:   97  100   97  155   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 46:  234  261  213  218   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request

with irq_set_affinity:
 43:  721    0    0    1   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 44:    0  746    0    1   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 45:    0    0  658    0   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request
 46:    0    0    1  547   PCI-MSI-edge   virtio0-request

I gathered these quickly after boot, but real benchmarks show the same
behavior, and performance gets actually worse with virtio-scsi
multiqueue+irq_set_affinity_hint than with irq_set_affinity.

I also tried adding IRQ_NO_BALANCING, but the only effect is that I
cannot set the affinity

The queue steering algorithm I use in virtio-scsi is extremely simple
and based on your tx code.  See how my nice pinning is destroyed:

# taskset -c 0 dd if=/dev/sda bs=1M count=1000 of=/dev/null iflag=direct
# cat /proc/interrupts
 43:  2690 2709 2691 2696   PCI-MSI-edge      virtio0-request
 44:   109  122  199  124   PCI-MSI-edge      virtio0-request
 45:   170  183  170  237   PCI-MSI-edge      virtio0-request
 46:   143  166  125  125   PCI-MSI-edge      virtio0-request

All my requests come from CPU#0 and thus go to the first virtqueue, but
the interrupts are serviced all over the place.

Did you set the affinity manually in your experiments, or perhaps there
is a difference between scsi and networking... (interrupt mitigation?)

Paolo
--
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