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  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:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:55:16 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
        "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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version


On 2020/7/20 下午7:16, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:27 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:16:27PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:58 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:39:26AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
>>>>>>> How about playing with the batch size? Make it a mod parameter instead
>>>>>>> of the hard coded 64, and measure for all values 1 to 64 ...
>>>>>> Right, according to the test result, 64 seems to be too aggressive in
>>>>>> the case of TX.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Got it, thanks both!
>>>> In particular I wonder whether with batch size 1
>>>> we get same performance as without batching
>>>> (would indicate 64 is too aggressive)
>>>> or not (would indicate one of the code changes
>>>> affects performance in an unexpected way).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> MST
>>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Varying batch_size as drivers/vhost/net.c:VHOST_NET_BATCH,
>> sorry this is not what I meant.
>>
>> I mean something like this:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> index 0b509be8d7b1..b94680e5721d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> @@ -1279,6 +1279,10 @@ static void handle_rx_net(struct vhost_work *work)
>>          handle_rx(net);
>>   }
>>
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(batch_num, "Number of batched descriptors. (offset from 64)");
>> +module_param(batch_num, int, 0644);
>> +static int batch_num = 0;
>> +
>>   static int vhost_net_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
>>   {
>>          struct vhost_net *n;
>> @@ -1333,7 +1337,7 @@ static int vhost_net_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
>>                  vhost_net_buf_init(&n->vqs[i].rxq);
>>          }
>>          vhost_dev_init(dev, vqs, VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX,
>> -                      UIO_MAXIOV + VHOST_NET_BATCH,
>> +                      UIO_MAXIOV + VHOST_NET_BATCH + batch_num,
>>                         VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT, VHOST_NET_WEIGHT, true,
>>                         NULL);
>>
>>
>> then you can try tweaking batching and playing with mod parameter without
>> recompiling.
>>
>>
>> VHOST_NET_BATCH affects lots of other things.
>>
> Ok, got it. Since they were aligned from the start, I thought it was a good idea to maintain them in-sync.
>
>>> and testing
>>> the pps as previous mail says. This means that we have either only
>>> vhost_net batching (in base testing, like previously to apply this
>>> patch) or both batching sizes the same.
>>>
>>> I've checked that vhost process (and pktgen) goes 100% cpu also.
>>>
>>> For tx: Batching decrements always the performance, in all cases. Not
>>> sure why bufapi made things better the last time.
>>>
>>> Batching makes improvements until 64 bufs, I see increments of pps but like 1%.
>>>
>>> For rx: Batching always improves performance. It seems that if we
>>> batch little, bufapi decreases performance, but beyond 64, bufapi is
>>> much better. The bufapi version keeps improving until I set a batching
>>> of 1024. So I guess it is super good to have a bunch of buffers to
>>> receive.
>>>
>>> Since with this test I cannot disable event_idx or things like that,
>>> what would be the next step for testing?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Results:
>>> # Buf size: 1,16,32,64,128,256,512
>>>
>>> # Tx
>>> # ===
>>> # Base
>>> 2293304.308,3396057.769,3540860.615,3636056.077,3332950.846,3694276.154,3689820
>>> # Batch
>>> 2286723.857,3307191.643,3400346.571,3452527.786,3460766.857,3431042.5,3440722.286
>>> # Batch + Bufapi
>>> 2257970.769,3151268.385,3260150.538,3379383.846,3424028.846,3433384.308,3385635.231,3406554.538
>>>
>>> # Rx
>>> # ==
>>> # pktgen results (pps)
>>> 1223275,1668868,1728794,1769261,1808574,1837252,1846436
>>> 1456924,1797901,1831234,1868746,1877508,1931598,1936402
>>> 1368923,1719716,1794373,1865170,1884803,1916021,1975160
>>>
>>> # Testpmd pps results
>>> 1222698.143,1670604,1731040.6,1769218,1811206,1839308.75,1848478.75
>>> 1450140.5,1799985.75,1834089.75,1871290,1880005.5,1934147.25,1939034
>>> 1370621,1721858,1796287.75,1866618.5,1885466.5,1918670.75,1976173.5,1988760.75,1978316
>>>
>>> pktgen was run again for rx with 1024 and 2048 buf size, giving
>>> 1988760.75 and 1978316 pps. Testpmd goes the same way.
>> Don't really understand what does this data mean.
>> Which number of descs is batched for each run?
>>
> Sorry, I should have explained better. I will expand here, but feel free to skip it since we are going to discard the
> data anyway. Or to propose a better way to tell them.
>
> Is a CSV with the values I've obtained, in pps, from pktgen and testpmd. This way is easy to plot them.
>
> Maybe is easier as tables, if mail readers/gmail does not misalign them.
>
>>> # Tx
>>> # ===
> Base: With the previous code, not integrating any patch. testpmd is txonly mode, tap interface is XDP_DROP everything.
> We vary VHOST_NET_BATCH (1, 16, 32, ...). As Jason put in a previous mail:
>
> TX: testpmd(txonly) -> virtio-user -> vhost_net -> XDP_DROP on TAP
>
>
>       1     |     16     |     32     |     64     |     128    |    256     |   512  |
> 2293304.308| 3396057.769| 3540860.615| 3636056.077| 3332950.846| 3694276.154| 3689820|
>
> If we add the batching part of the series, but not the bufapi:
>
>        1     |     16     |     32     |     64     |     128    |    256    |     512    |
> 2286723.857 | 3307191.643| 3400346.571| 3452527.786| 3460766.857| 3431042.5 | 3440722.286|
>
> And if we add the bufapi part, i.e., all the series:
>
>        1    |     16     |     32     |     64     |     128    |     256    |     512    |    1024
> 2257970.769| 3151268.385| 3260150.538| 3379383.846| 3424028.846| 3433384.308| 3385635.231| 3406554.538
>
> For easier treatment, all in the same table:
>
>       1      |     16      |     32      |      64     |     128     |    256      |   512      |    1024
> ------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------
> 2293304.308 | 3396057.769 | 3540860.615 | 3636056.077 | 3332950.846 | 3694276.154 | 3689820    |
> 2286723.857 | 3307191.643 | 3400346.571 | 3452527.786 | 3460766.857 | 3431042.5   | 3440722.286|
> 2257970.769 | 3151268.385 | 3260150.538 | 3379383.846 | 3424028.846 | 3433384.308 | 3385635.231| 3406554.538
>   
>>> # Rx
>>> # ==
> The rx tests are done with pktgen injecting packets in tap interface, and testpmd in rxonly forward mode. Again, each
> column is a different value of VHOST_NET_BATCH, and each row is base, +batching, and +buf_api:
>
>>> # pktgen results (pps)
> (Didn't record extreme cases like >512 bufs batching)
>
>     1   |   16   |   32   |   64   |   128  |  256   |   512
> -------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------
> 1223275| 1668868| 1728794| 1769261| 1808574| 1837252| 1846436
> 1456924| 1797901| 1831234| 1868746| 1877508| 1931598| 1936402
> 1368923| 1719716| 1794373| 1865170| 1884803| 1916021| 1975160
>
>>> # Testpmd pps results
>        1     |     16     |     32     |     64    |    128    |    256     |    512     |    1024    |   2048
> ------------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+---------
> 1222698.143 | 1670604    | 1731040.6  | 1769218   | 1811206   | 1839308.75 | 1848478.75 |
> 1450140.5   | 1799985.75 | 1834089.75 | 1871290   | 1880005.5 | 1934147.25 | 1939034    |
> 1370621     | 1721858    | 1796287.75 | 1866618.5 | 1885466.5 | 1918670.75 | 1976173.5  | 1988760.75 | 1978316
>
> The last extreme cases (>512 bufs batched) were recorded just for the bufapi case.
>
> Does that make sense now?
>
> Thanks!


I wonder why we saw huge difference between TX and RX pps. Have you used 
samples/pktgen/XXX for doing the test? Maybe you can paste the perf 
record result for the pktgen thread + vhost thread.

Thanks


>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists