netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v7 03/14] vhost: use batched get_vq

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: <CAJaqyWe6d19hFAbpqaQqOPuQQmBQyevyF4sTVkaXKhD729XDkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:18:32 +0200
From:   Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 03/14] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:13 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:37:50PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > +/* This function returns a value > 0 if a descriptor was found, or 0 if none were found.
> > > + * A negative code is returned on error. */
> > > +static int fetch_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > > +{
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       if (unlikely(vq->first_desc >= vq->ndescs)) {
> > > +               vq->first_desc = 0;
> > > +               vq->ndescs = 0;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (vq->ndescs)
> > > +               return 1;
> > > +
> > > +       for (ret = 1;
> > > +            ret > 0 && vq->ndescs <= vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq);
> > > +            ret = fetch_buf(vq))
> > > +               ;
> >
> > (Expanding comment in V6):
> >
> > We get an infinite loop this way:
> > * vq->ndescs == 0, so we call fetch_buf() here
> > * fetch_buf gets less than vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq); descriptors. ret = 1
> > * This loop calls again fetch_buf, but vq->ndescs > 0 (and avail_vq ==
> > last_avail_vq), so it just return 1
>
> That's what
>          [PATCH RFC v7 08/14] fixup! vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version
> is supposed to fix.
>

Sorry, I forgot to include that fixup.

With it I don't see CPU stalls, but with that version latency has
increased a lot and I see packet lost:
+ ping -c 5 10.200.0.1
PING 10.200.0.1 (10.200.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
>From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=6848 ms

--- 10.200.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 1 received, +3 errors, 80% packet loss, time 76ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6848.316/6848.316/6848.316/0.000 ms, pipe 4
--

I cannot even use netperf.

If I modify with my proposed version:
+ ping -c 5 10.200.0.1
PING 10.200.0.1 (10.200.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=7.07 ms
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.358 ms
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=5.35 ms
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.27 ms
64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.426 ms

[root@...alhost ~]# netperf -H 10.200.0.1 -p 12865 -l 10 -t TCP_STREAM
MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
10.200.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec

131072  16384  16384    10.01    4742.36
[root@...alhost ~]# netperf -H 10.200.0.1 -p 12865 -l 10 -t UDP_STREAM
MIGRATED UDP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
10.200.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages
Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput
bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   10^6bits/sec

212992   65507   10.00        9214      0     482.83
212992           10.00        9214            482.83

I will compare with the non-batch version for reference, but the
difference between the two is noticeable. Maybe it's worth finding a
good value for the if() inside fetch_buf?

Thanks!


> --
> MST
>