Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:12:28 -0700
From:	Michael Ma <make0818@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qdisc spin lock

2016-04-21 5:41 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:51 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> 2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
>> > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
>> >> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> >> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> >> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
>> >> >> really have multiple interfaces...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to
>> >> >> different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth limit if I
>> >> >> understand correctly, which seems to be less convenient compared with
>> >> >> a solution purely within HTB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I assume that with this solution I can still share qdisc among
>> >> >> multiple transmit queues - please let me know if this is not the case.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that this MQ + HTB thing works well, unless you use a bonding
>> >> > device. (Or you need the MQ+HTB on the slaves, with no way of sharing
>> >> > tokens between the slaves)
>> >>
>> >> Actually MQ+HTB works well for small packets - like flow of 512 byte
>> >> packets can be throttled by HTB using one txq without being affected
>> >> by other flows with small packets. However I found using this solution
>> >> large packets (10k for example) will only achieve very limited
>> >> bandwidth. In my test I used MQ to assign one txq to a HTB which sets
>> >> rate at 1Gbit/s, 512 byte packets can achieve the ceiling rate by
>> >> using 30 threads. But sending 10k packets using 10 threads has only 10
>> >> Mbit/s with the same TC configuration. If I increase burst and cburst
>> >> of HTB to some extreme large value (like 50MB) the ceiling rate can be
>> >> hit.
>> >>
>> >> The strange thing is that I don't see this problem when using HTB as
>> >> the root. So txq number seems to be a factor here - however it's
>> >> really hard to understand why would it only affect larger packets. Is
>> >> this a known issue? Any suggestion on how to investigate the issue
>> >> further? Profiling shows that the cpu utilization is pretty low.
>> >
>> > You could try
>> >
>> > perf record -a -g -e skb:kfree_skb sleep 5
>> > perf report
>> >
>> > So that you see where the packets are dropped.
>> >
>> > Chances are that your UDP sockets SO_SNDBUF is too big, and packets are
>> > dropped at qdisc enqueue time, instead of having backpressure.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the hint - how should I read the perf report? Also we're
>> using TCP socket in this testing - TCP window size is set to 70kB.
>
> But how are you telling TCP to send 10k packets ?
>
We just write to the socket with 10k buffer and wait for a response
from the server (using read()) before the next write. Using tcpdump I
can see the 10k write is actually sent through 3 packets
(7.3k/1.5k/1.3k).

> AFAIK you can not : TCP happily aggregates packets in write queue
> (see current MSG_EOR discussion)
>
> I suspect a bug in your tc settings.
>
>

Could you help to check my tc setting?

sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 root mqprio num_tc 6 map 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0
queues 19@0 1@19 1@20 1@21 1@22 1@23 hw 0
sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 805a:1a handle 8001:0 htb default 10
sudo tc class add dev eth0 parent 8001: classid 8001:10 htb rate 1000Mbit

I didn't set r2q/burst/cburst/mtu/mpu so the default value should be used.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists