netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] virtio-net: transmit napi

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: <20170424194015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:40:53 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] virtio-net: transmit napi

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:50:12AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>> Maybe I was wrong, but according to Michael's comment it looks like he
> >>> want
> >>> check affinity_hint_set just for speculative tx polling on rx napi
> >>> instead
> >>> of disabling it at all.
> >>>
> >>> And I'm not convinced this is really needed, driver only provide affinity
> >>> hint instead of affinity, so it's not guaranteed that tx and rx interrupt
> >>> are in the same vcpus.
> >>
> >> You're right. I made the restriction broader than the request, to really
> >> err
> >> on the side of caution for the initial merge of napi tx. And enabling
> >> the optimization is always a win over keeping it off, even without irq
> >> affinity.
> >>
> >> The cycle cost is significant without affinity regardless of whether the
> >> optimization is used.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I noticed this in the past too.
> >
> >> Though this is not limited to napi-tx, it is more
> >> pronounced in that mode than without napi.
> >>
> >> 1x TCP_RR for affinity configuration {process, rx_irq, tx_irq}:
> >>
> >> upstream:
> >>
> >> 1,1,1: 28985 Mbps, 278 Gcyc
> >> 1,0,2: 30067 Mbps, 402 Gcyc
> >>
> >> napi tx:
> >>
> >> 1,1,1: 34492 Mbps, 269 Gcyc
> >> 1,0,2: 36527 Mbps, 537 Gcyc (!)
> >> 1,0,1: 36269 Mbps, 394 Gcyc
> >> 1,0,0: 34674 Mbps, 402 Gcyc
> >>
> >> This is a particularly strong example. It is also representative
> >> of most RR tests. It is less pronounced in other streaming tests.
> >> 10x TCP_RR, for instance:
> >>
> >> upstream:
> >>
> >> 1,1,1: 42267 Mbps, 301 Gcyc
> >> 1,0,2: 40663 Mbps, 445 Gcyc
> >>
> >> napi tx:
> >>
> >> 1,1,1: 42420 Mbps, 303 Gcyc
> >> 1,0,2:  42267 Mbps, 431 Gcyc
> >>
> >> These numbers were obtained with the virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed
> >> optimization after xmit_skb, btw. It turns out that moving that before
> >> increases 1x TCP_RR further to ~39 Gbps, at the cost of reducing
> >> 100x TCP_RR a bit.
> >
> >
> > I see, so I think we can leave the affinity hint optimization/check for
> > future investigation:
> >
> > - to avoid endless optimization (e.g we may want to share a single
> > vector/napi for tx/rx queue pairs in the future) for this series.
> > - tx napi is disabled by default which means we can do optimization on top.
> 
> Okay. I'll drop the vi->affinity_hint_set from the patch set for now.

I kind of like it, let's be conservative. But I'd prefer a comment
near it explaining why it's there.

-- 
MST