netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] 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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:11:21 +0200
From:   Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        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 v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > <eperezma@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > > <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now.
> > > >
> > > > What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Konrad.
> > >
> > > I tested this version of the patch:
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42
> > >
> > > It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in
> > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html)
> > > and kernel pktgen. No latency tests were performed by me. Maybe it is
> > > interesting to perform a latency test or just a different set of tests
> > > over a recent version.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > I have repeated the tests with v9, and results are a little bit different:
> > * If I test opening it with testpmd, I see no change between versions
>
>
> OK that is testpmd on guest, right? And vhost-net on the host?
>

Hi Michael.

No, sorry, as described in
http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html.
But I could add to test it in the guest too.

These kinds of raw packets "bursts" do not show performance
differences, but I could test deeper if you think it would be worth
it.

> > * If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest
> > using a linux bridge in the host:
>
> And here I guess you mean virtio-net in the guest kernel?

Yes, sorry: Two virtio-net interfaces connected with a linux bridge in
the host. More precisely:
* Adding one of the interfaces to another namespace, assigning it an
IP, and starting netserver there.
* Assign another IP in the range manually to the other virtual net
interface, and start the desired test there.

If you think it would be better to perform then differently please let me know.

>
> >   - netperf UDP_STREAM shows a performance increase of 1.8, almost
> > doubling performance. This gets lower as frame size increase.
> >   - rests of the test goes noticeably worse: UDP_RR goes from ~6347
> > transactions/sec to 5830
>
> OK so it seems plausible that we still have a bug where an interrupt
> is delayed. That is the main difference between pmd and virtio.
> Let's try disabling event index, and see what happens - that's
> the trickiest part of interrupts.
>

Got it, will get back with the results.

Thank you very much!

>
>
> >   - TCP_STREAM goes from ~10.7 gbps to ~7Gbps
> >   - TCP_RR from 6223.64 transactions/sec to 5739.44
>