netdev - Re: CPU scheduler to TXQ binding? (ixgbe vs. igb)

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:56:40 +0200
From:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: CPU scheduler to TXQ binding? (ixgbe vs. igb)

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:59:51 -0700
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> wrote:

> On 09/17/2014 07:32 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 15:26 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> The CPU to TXQ binding behavior of ixgbe vs. igb NIC driver are
> >> somehow different.  Normally I setup NIC IRQ-to-CPU bindings 1-to-1,
> >> with script set_irq_affinity [1].
> >>
> >> For forcing use of a specific HW TXQ, I normally force the CPU binding
> >> of the process, either with "taskset" or with "netperf -T lcpu,rcpu".
> >>
> >> This works fine with driver ixgbe, but not with driver igb.  That is
> >> with igb, the program forced to specific CPU, can still use another
> >> TXQ. What am I missing?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm monitoring this with both:
> >>  1) watch -d sudo tc -s -d q ls dev ethXX
> >>  2) https://github.com/ffainelli/bqlmon
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/bin/set_irq_affinity
> > 
> > Have you setup XPS ?
> > 
> > echo 0001 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-0/xps_cpus
> > echo 0002 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-1/xps_cpus
> > echo 0004 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-2/xps_cpus
> > echo 0008 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-3/xps_cpus
> > echo 0010 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-4/xps_cpus
> > echo 0020 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-5/xps_cpus
> > echo 0040 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-6/xps_cpus
> > echo 0080 >/sys/class/net/ethX/queues/tx-7/xps_cpus
> > 
> > Or something like that, depending on number of cpus and TX queues.
> > 
> 
> That was what I was thinking as well.
> 
> ixgbe has ATR which makes use of XPS to setup the transmit queues for a
> 1:1 mapping.  The receive side of the flow is routed back to the same Rx
> queue through flow director mappings.
> 
> In the case of igb it only has RSS and doesn't set a default XPS
> configuration.  So you should probably setup XPS and you might also want
> to try and make use of RPS to try and steer receive packets since the Rx
> queues won't match the Tx queues.

After setting up XPS to CPU 1:1 binding, it works most of the time.
Meaning, most of the traffic will go through the TXQ I've bound the
process to, BUT some packets can still choose another TXQ (observed
monitoring tc output and blqmon).

Could this be related to the missing RPS setup?

Can I get some hints setting up RPS?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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