netdev - Re: Regression in throughput between kvm guests over virtual bridge

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:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:13:12 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Wei Xu <wexu@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Regression in throughput between kvm guests over virtual bridge

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:06:36AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017年10月19日 04:17, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> > > 2. It might be useful to short the traffic path as a reference, What I am running
> > > is briefly like:
> > >      pktgen(host kernel) -> tap(x) -> guest(DPDK testpmd)
> > > 
> > > The bridge driver(br_forward(), etc) might impact performance due to my personal
> > > experience, so eventually I settled down with this simplified testbed which fully
> > > isolates the traffic from both userspace and host kernel stack(1 and 50 instances,
> > > bridge driver, etc), therefore reduces potential interferences.
> > > 
> > > The down side of this is that it needs DPDK support in guest, has this ever be
> > > run on s390x guest? An alternative approach is to directly run XDP drop on
> > > virtio-net nic in guest, while this requires compiling XDP inside guest which needs
> > > a newer distro(Fedora 25+ in my case or Ubuntu 16.10, not sure).
> > > 
> > I made an attempt at DPDK, but it has not been run on s390x as far as
> > I'm aware and didn't seem trivial to get working.
> > 
> > So instead I took your alternate suggestion & did:
> > pktgen(host) -> tap(x) -> guest(xdp_drop)
> > 
> > When running this setup, I am not able to reproduce the regression.  As
> > mentioned previously, I am also unable to reproduce when running one end
> > of the uperf connection from the host - I have only ever been able to
> > reproduce when both ends of the uperf connection are running within a guest.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the test. Looking at the code, the only obvious difference when
> BATCH is 1 is that one spinlock which was previously called by
> tun_peek_len() was avoided since we can do it locally. I wonder whether or
> not this speeds up handle_rx() a little more then leads more wakeups during
> some rates/sizes of TCP stream. To prove this, maybe you can try:
> 
> - enable busy polling, using poll-us=1000, and to see if we can still get
> the regression
> - measure the pps pktgen(vm1) -> tap1 -> bridge -> tap2 -> vm2
> 
> Michael, any another possibility in your mind?
> 
> Thanks

Not really. I still suspect since it's s390 only there's
some kind of race condition where we wake up a task repeatedly.

-- 
MST