[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51b1ec1f-e4aa-8876-10e8-1ef84f067728@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:23:36 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <olteanv@...il.com>,
<ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andriin@...com>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <weiwan@...gle.com>,
<cong.wang@...edance.com>, <ap420073@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...neuler.org>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
<yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <mzhivich@...mai.com>,
<johunt@...mai.com>, <albcamus@...il.com>, <kehuan.feng@...il.com>,
<a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, <atenart@...nel.org>,
<alexander.duyck@...il.com>, <hdanton@...a.com>, <jgross@...e.com>,
<JKosina@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for
lockless qdisc
On 2021/4/20 7:55, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:29:46PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>
>> As pointed out in the discussion on v3, this patch may result in
>> significantly higher CPU consumption with multiple threads competing on
>> a saturated outgoing device. I missed this submission so that I haven't
>> checked it yet but given the description of v3->v4 changes above, it's
>> quite likely that it suffers from the same problem.
>
> And it indeed does. However, with the additional patch from the v3
> discussion, the numbers are approximately the same as with an unpatched
> mainline kernel.
>
> As with v4, I tried this patch on top of 5.12-rc7 with real devices.
> I used two machines with 10Gb/s Intel ixgbe NICs, sender has 16 CPUs
> (2 8-core CPUs with HT disabled) and 16 Rx/Tx queues, receiver has
> 48 CPUs (2 12-core CPUs with HT enabled) and 48 Rx/Tx queues.
>
> threads 5.12-rc7 5.12-rc7 + v4 5.12-rc7 + v4 + stop
> 1 25.1% 38.1% 22.9%
> 8 66.2% 277.0% 74.1%
> 16 90.1% 150.7% 91.0%
> 32 107.2% 272.6% 108.3%
> 64 116.3% 487.5% 118.1%
> 128 126.1% 946.7% 126.9%
>
> (The values are normalized to one core, i.e. 100% corresponds to one
> fully used logical CPU.)
>
> So it seems that repeated scheduling while the queue was stopped is
> indeed the main performance issue and that other cases of the logic
> being too pessimistic do not play significant role. There is an
> exception with 8 connections/threads and the result with just this
> series also looks abnormally high (e.g. much higher than with
> 16 threads). It might be worth investigating what happens there and
> what do the results with other thread counts around 8 look like.
Will try to investigate the 8 connections/threads case.
>
> I'll run some more tests with other traffic patterns tomorrow and
> I'm also going to take a closer look at the additional patch.
Thanks for taking the detail testing and looking.
>
> Michal
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists