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: <7037c58d-d77d-bdd5-6c91-19cea3cbe539@itcare.pl>
Date:   Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:49:56 +0100
From:   Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel 4.19 network performance - forwarding/routing normal users
 traffic



W dniu 10.11.2018 o 20:34, Jesper Dangaard Brouer pisze:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 23:20:38 +0100 Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl> wrote:
>
>> W dniu 08.11.2018 o 20:12, Paweł Staszewski pisze:
>>> CPU load is lower than for connectx4 - but it looks like bandwidth
>>> limit is the same :)
>>> But also after reaching 60Gbit/60Gbit
>>>
>>>   bwm-ng v0.6.1 (probing every 1.000s), press 'h' for help
>>>    input: /proc/net/dev type: rate
>>>    -         iface                   Rx Tx                Total
>>> ==========================================================================
>>>
>>>           enp175s0:          45.09 Gb/s           15.09 Gb/s     60.18 Gb/s
>>>           enp216s0:          15.14 Gb/s           45.19 Gb/s     60.33 Gb/s
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>              total:          60.45 Gb/s           60.48 Gb/s 120.93 Gb/s
>> Today reached 65/65Gbit/s
>>
>> But starting from 60Gbit/s RX / 60Gbit TX nics start to drop packets
>> (with 50%CPU on all 28cores) - so still there is cpu power to use :).
> This is weird!
>
> How do you see / measure these drops?
Simple icmp test like ping -i 0.1
And im testing by icmp management ip address on vlan that is attacked to 
one NIC (the side that is more stressed with RX)
And another icmp test is forward thru this router - host behind it

Both measurements shows same loss ratio from 0.1 to 0.5% after reaching 
~45Gbit/s RX side - depends how much RX side is pushed drops vary 
between 0.1 to 0.5 - even 0.6%:)


>
>
>> So checked other stats.
>> softnet_stats shows average 1k squeezed per sec:
> Is below output the raw counters? not per sec?
>
> It would be valuable to see the per sec stats instead...
> I use this tool:
>   https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/bin/softnet_stat.pl
>
>> cpu      total    dropped   squeezed  collision        rps flow_limit
>>     0      18554          0          1          0          0 0
>>     1      16728          0          1          0          0 0
>>     2      18033          0          1          0          0 0
>>     3      17757          0          1          0          0 0
>>     4      18861          0          0          0          0 0
>>     5          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>     6          2          0          1          0          0 0
>>     7          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>     8          0          0          0          0          0 0
>>     9          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    10          0          0          0          0          0 0
>>    11          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    12         50          0          1          0          0 0
>>    13        257          0          0          0          0 0
>>    14 3629115363          0    3353259          0          0 0
>>    15  255167835          0    3138271          0          0 0
>>    16 4240101961          0    3036130          0          0 0
>>    17  599810018          0    3072169          0          0 0
>>    18  432796524          0    3034191          0          0 0
>>    19   41803906          0    3037405          0          0 0
>>    20  900382666          0    3112294          0          0 0
>>    21  620926085          0    3086009          0          0 0
>>    22   41861198          0    3023142          0          0 0
>>    23 4090425574          0    2990412          0          0 0
>>    24 4264870218          0    3010272          0          0 0
>>    25  141401811          0    3027153          0          0 0
>>    26  104155188          0    3051251          0          0 0
>>    27 4261258691          0    3039765          0          0 0
>>    28          4          0          1          0          0 0
>>    29          4          0          0          0          0 0
>>    30          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    31          0          0          0          0          0 0
>>    32          3          0          1          0          0 0
>>    33          1          0          1          0          0 0
>>    34          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    35          0          0          0          0          0 0
>>    36          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    37          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    38          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    39          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    40          0          0          0          0          0 0
>>    41          0          0          1          0          0 0
>>    42  299758202          0    3139693          0          0 0
>>    43 4254727979          0    3103577          0          0 0
>>    44 1959555543          0    2554885          0          0 0
>>    45 1675702723          0    2513481          0          0 0
>>    46 1908435503          0    2519698          0          0 0
>>    47 1877799710          0    2537768          0          0 0
>>    48 2384274076          0    2584673          0          0 0
>>    49 2598104878          0    2593616          0          0 0
>>    50 1897566829          0    2530857          0          0 0
>>    51 1712741629          0    2489089          0          0 0
>>    52 1704033648          0    2495892          0          0 0
>>    53 1636781820          0    2499783          0          0 0
>>    54 1861997734          0    2541060          0          0 0
>>    55 2113521616          0    2555673          0          0 0
>>
>>
>> So i rised netdev backlog and budged to rly high values
>> 524288 for netdev_budget and same for backlog
> Does it affect the squeezed counters?
a little - but not much
After change budget from 65536 to to 524k - number of squeezed counters 
for all cpus changed from 1.5k per second to 0.9-1k per second - but 
increasing it more like above 524k change nothing - same 0.9 to 1k/s 
squeezed
>
> Notice, this (crazy) huge netdev_budget limit will also be limited
> by /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_budget_usecs.
Yes changed that also to 1000 / 2000 / 3000 / 4000  not much difference 
on squeezed - even cant see the difference

>
>> This rised sortirqs from about 600k/sec to 800k/sec for NET_TX/NET_RX
> Hmmm, this could indicated not enough NAPI bulking is occurring.
>
> I have a BPF tool, that can give you some insight into NAPI bulking and
> softirq idle/kthread starting. Called 'napi_monitor', could you try to
> run this, so can try to understand this? You find the tool here:
>
>   https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/samples/bpf/
>   https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/samples/bpf/napi_monitor_user.c
>   https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/samples/bpf/napi_monitor_kern.c
yes will try it

>   
>> But after this changes i have less packets drops.
>>
>>
>> Below perf top from max traffic reached:
>>      PerfTop:   72230 irqs/sec  kernel:99.4%  exact:  0.0% [4000Hz
>> cycles],  (all, 56 CPUs)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>       12.62%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_skb_from_cqe_mpwrq_linear
>>        8.44%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_sq_xmit
>>        6.69%  [kernel]       [k] build_skb
>>        5.21%  [kernel]       [k] fib_table_lookup
>>        3.54%  [kernel]       [k] memcpy_erms
>>        3.20%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_poll_rx_cq
>>        2.25%  [kernel]       [k] vlan_do_receive
>>        2.20%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_post_rx_mpwqes
>>        2.02%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_handle_rx_cqe_mpwrq
>>        1.95%  [kernel]       [k] __dev_queue_xmit
>>        1.83%  [kernel]       [k] dev_gro_receive
>>        1.79%  [kernel]       [k] tcp_gro_receive
>>        1.73%  [kernel]       [k] ip_finish_output2
>>        1.63%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_poll_tx_cq
>>        1.49%  [kernel]       [k] ipt_do_table
>>        1.38%  [kernel]       [k] inet_gro_receive
>>        1.31%  [kernel]       [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
>>        1.30%  [kernel]       [k] _raw_spin_lock
>>        1.28%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5_eq_int
>>        1.24%  [kernel]       [k] irq_entries_start
>>        1.19%  [kernel]       [k] __build_skb
>>        1.15%  [kernel]       [k] swiotlb_map_page
>>        1.02%  [kernel]       [k] vlan_dev_hard_start_xmit
>>        0.94%  [kernel]       [k] pfifo_fast_dequeue
>>        0.92%  [kernel]       [k] ip_route_input_rcu
>>        0.86%  [kernel]       [k] kmem_cache_alloc
>>        0.80%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_xmit
>>        0.79%  [kernel]       [k] dev_hard_start_xmit
>>        0.78%  [kernel]       [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>>        0.74%  [kernel]       [k] ip_forward
>>        0.72%  [kernel]       [k] tasklet_action_common.isra.21
>>        0.68%  [kernel]       [k] pfifo_fast_enqueue
>>        0.67%  [kernel]       [k] netif_skb_features
>>        0.66%  [kernel]       [k] skb_segment
>>        0.60%  [kernel]       [k] skb_gro_receive
>>        0.56%  [kernel]       [k] validate_xmit_skb.isra.142
>>        0.53%  [kernel]       [k] skb_release_data
>>        0.51%  [kernel]       [k] mlx5e_page_release
>>        0.51%  [kernel]       [k] ip_rcv_core.isra.20.constprop.25
>>        0.51%  [kernel]       [k] __qdisc_run
>>        0.50%  [kernel]       [k] tcp4_gro_receive
>>        0.49%  [kernel]       [k] page_frag_free
>>        0.46%  [kernel]       [k] kmem_cache_free_bulk
>>        0.43%  [kernel]       [k] kmem_cache_free
>>        0.42%  [kernel]       [k] try_to_wake_up
>>        0.39%  [kernel]       [k] _raw_spin_lock_irq
>>        0.39%  [kernel]       [k] find_busiest_group
>>        0.37%  [kernel]       [k] __memcpy
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember those tests are now on two separate connectx5 connected to
>> two separate pcie x16  gen 3.0
>   
> That is strange... I still suspect some HW NIC issue, can you provide
> ethtool stats info via tool:
>
>   https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/bin/ethtool_stats.pl
>
> $ ethtool_stats.pl --dev enp175s0 --dev enp216s0
>
> The tool remove zero-stats counters and report per sec stats.  It makes
> it easier to spot that is relevant for the given workload.
yes mlnx have just too many counters that are always 0 for my case :)
Will try this also

>
> Can you give output put from:
>   $ ethtool --show-priv-flag DEVICE
>
> I want you to experiment with:
ethtool --show-priv-flags enp175s0
Private flags for enp175s0:
rx_cqe_moder       : on
tx_cqe_moder       : off
rx_cqe_compress    : off
rx_striding_rq     : on
rx_no_csum_complete: off

>
>   ethtool --set-priv-flags DEVICE rx_striding_rq off
ok i will first check on test server if this will reset my interface and 
will not produce kernel panic :)
>
> I think you already have played with 'rx_cqe_compress', right.
yes - and compress increasing number of irq's but doing not much for 
bandwidth same limit 60-64Gbit/s total RX+TX on one 100G port

And what is weird - that limit is in overall symetric - cause if for 
example 100G port is receiving 42G traffic and transmitting 20G traffic 
- when i flood rx side with pktgen or other for example icmp traffic 
1/2/3/4/5G - then receiving side increase with 1/2/3/4/5Gbit of traffic 
but transmitting is going down for same lvl's



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ