netdev - RE: Netperf UDP issue with connected sockets

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: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DB0222982@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:34:12 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Jesper Dangaard Brouer' <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Netperf UDP issue with connected sockets

From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> Sent: 17 November 2016 14:58
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:17:38 -0800
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 14:42 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >
> > > I can see that qdisc layer does not activate xmit_more in this case.
> > >
> >
> > Sure. Not enough pressure from the sender(s).
> >
> > The bottleneck is not the NIC or qdisc in your case, meaning that BQL
> > limit is kept at a small value.
> >
> > (BTW not all NIC have expensive doorbells)
> 
> I believe this NIC mlx5 (50G edition) does.
> 
> I'm seeing UDP TX of 1656017.55 pps, which is per packet:
> 2414 cycles(tsc) 603.86 ns
> 
> Perf top shows (with my own udp_flood, that avoids __ip_select_ident):
> 
>  Samples: 56K of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 51613832267
>    Overhead  Command        Shared Object        Symbol
>  +    8.92%  udp_flood      [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] _raw_spin_lock
>    - _raw_spin_lock
>       + 90.78% __dev_queue_xmit
>       + 7.83% dev_queue_xmit
>       + 1.30% ___slab_alloc
>  +    5.59%  udp_flood      [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] skb_set_owner_w
>  +    4.77%  udp_flood      [mlx5_core]          [k] mlx5e_sq_xmit
>  +    4.09%  udp_flood      [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] fib_table_lookup
>  +    4.00%  swapper        [mlx5_core]          [k] mlx5e_poll_tx_cq
>  +    3.11%  udp_flood      [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] __ip_route_output_key_hash
>  +    2.49%  swapper        [kernel.vmlinux]     [k] __slab_free
> 
> In this setup the spinlock in __dev_queue_xmit should be uncongested.
> An uncongested spin_lock+unlock cost 32 cycles(tsc) 8.198 ns on this system.
> 
> But 8.92% of the time is spend on it, which corresponds to a cost of 215
> cycles (2414*0.0892).  This cost is too high, thus something else is
> going on... I claim this mysterious extra cost is the tailptr/doorbell.

Try adding code to ring the doorbell twice.
If this doesn't slow things down then it isn't (likely to be) responsible
for the delay you are seeing.

	David