Message-ID: <CAJ8uoz2JpfdjvjJp-vjWuhw5z1=2D32jj-KktFnLN6Zd9ZVmAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:24:32 +0200
From:   Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, shayagr@...zon.com,
        sameehj@...zon.com, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Tirthendu <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 bpf-next 00/14] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer support

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:39 PM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:12:32 +0200
> Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:48 PM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:49:44 +0200
> > > Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:56 AM Lorenzo Bianconi
> > > > <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 6:18 PM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > > > > > <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:27:18 +0200
> > > > > > > Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:51 PM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This series introduce XDP multi-buffer support. The mvneta driver is
> > > > > > > > > the first to support these new "non-linear" xdp_{buff,frame}. Reviewers
> > > > > > > > > please focus on how these new types of xdp_{buff,frame} packets
> > > > > > > > > traverse the different layers and the layout design. It is on purpose
> > > > > > > > > that BPF-helpers are kept simple, as we don't want to expose the
> > > > > > > > > internal layout to allow later changes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For now, to keep the design simple and to maintain performance, the XDP
> > > > > > > > > BPF-prog (still) only have access to the first-buffer. It is left for
> > > > > > > > > later (another patchset) to add payload access across multiple buffers.
> > > > > > > > > This patchset should still allow for these future extensions. The goal
> > > > > > > > > is to lift the XDP MTU restriction that comes with XDP, but maintain
> > > > > > > > > same performance as before.
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [0] https://netdevconf.info/0x14/session.html?talk-the-path-to-tcp-4k-mtu-and-rx-zerocopy
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/areas/core/xdp-multi-buffer01-design.org
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x14/session.html?tutorial-add-XDP-support-to-a-NIC-driver (XDPmulti-buffers section)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Took your patches for a test run with the AF_XDP sample xdpsock on an
> > > > > > > > i40e card and the throughput degradation is between 2 to 6% depending
> > > > > > > > on the setup and microbenchmark within xdpsock that is executed. And
> > > > > > > > this is without sending any multi frame packets. Just single frame
> > > > > > > > ones. Tirtha made changes to the i40e driver to support this new
> > > > > > > > interface so that is being included in the measurements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please share Tirtha's i40e support patch with me?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We will post them on the list as an RFC. Tirtha also added AF_XDP
> > > > > > multi-frame support on top of Lorenzo's patches so we will send that
> > > > > > one out as well. Will also rerun my experiments, properly document
> > > > > > them and send out just to be sure that I did not make any mistake.
> > > > >
> > > > > ack, very cool, thx
> > > >
> > > > I have now run a new set of experiments on a Cascade Lake server at
> > > > 2.1 GHz with turbo boost disabled. Two NICs: i40e and ice. The
> > > > baseline is commit 5c507329000e ("libbpf: Clarify flags in ringbuf
> > > > helpers") and Lorenzo's and Eelco's path set is their v8. First some
> > > > runs with xdpsock (i.e. AF_XDP) in both 2-core mode (app on one core
> > > > and the driver on another) and 1-core mode using busy_poll.
> > > >
> > > > xdpsock rxdrop throughput change with the multi-buffer patches without
> > > > any driver changes:
> > > > 1-core i40e: -0.5 to 0%   2-cores i40e: -0.5%
> > > > 1-core ice: -2%   2-cores ice: -1 to -0.5%
> > > >
> > > > xdp_rxq_info -a XDP_DROP
> > > > i40e: -4%   ice: +8%
> > > >
> > > > xdp_rxq_info -a XDP_TX
> > > > i40e: -10%   ice: +9%
> > > >
> > > > The XDP results with xdp_rxq_info are just weird! I reran them three
> > > > times, rebuilt and rebooted in between and I always get the same
> > > > results. And I also checked that I am running on the correct NUMA node
> > > > and so on. But I have a hard time believing them. Nearly +10% and -10%
> > > > difference. Too much in my book. Jesper, could you please run the same
> > > > and see what you get?
> > >
> > > We of-cause have to find the root-cause of the +-10%, but let me drill
> > > into what the 10% represent time/cycle wise.  Using a percentage
> > > difference is usually a really good idea as it implies a comparative
> > > measure (something I always request people to do, as a single
> > > performance number means nothing by itself).
> > >
> > > For a zoom-in-benchmarks like these where the amount of code executed
> > > is very small, the effect of removing or adding code can effect the
> > > measurement a lot.
> > >
> > > I can only do the tests for i40e, as I don't have ice hardware (but
> > > Intel is working on fixing that ;-)).
> > >
> > >  xdp_rxq_info -a XDP_DROP
> > >   i40e: 33,417,775 pps
> >
> > Here I only get around 21 Mpps
> >
> > >  CPU is 100% used, so we can calculate nanosec used per packet:
> > >   29.92 nanosec (1/33417775*10^9)
> > >   2.1 GHz CPU =  approx 63 CPU-cycles
> > >
> > >  You lost -4% performance in this case.  This correspond to:
> > >   -1.2 nanosec (29.92*0.04) slower
> > >   (This could be cost of single func call overhead = 1.3 ns)
> > >
> > > My measurement for XDP_TX:
> > >
> > >  xdp_rxq_info -a XDP_TX
> > >   28,278,722 pps
> > >   35.36 ns (1/28278722*10^9)
> >
> > And here, much lower at around 8 Mpps. But I do see correct packets
> > coming back on the cable for i40e but not for ice! There is likely a
> > bug there in the XDP_TX logic for ice. Might explain the weird results
> > I am getting. Will investigate.
> >
> > But why do I get only a fraction of your performance? XDP_TX touches
> > the packet so I would expect it to be far less than what you get, but
> > more than I get.
>
> I clearly have a bug in the i40e driver.  As I wrote later, I don't see
> any packets transmitted for XDP_TX.  Hmm, I using Mel Gorman's tree,
> which doesn't contain the i40e/ice/ixgbe bug we fixed earlier.
>
> The call to xdp_convert_buff_to_frame() fails, but (see below) that
> error is simply converted to I40E_XDP_CONSUMED.  Thus, not even the
> 'trace_xdp_exception' will be able to troubleshoot this.  You/Intel
> should consider making XDP_TX errors detectable (this will also happen
> if TX ring don't have room).

This is not good. Will submit a fix. Thanks for reporting Jesper.

>  int i40e_xmit_xdp_tx_ring(struct xdp_buff *xdp, struct i40e_ring *xdp_ring)
>  {
>         struct xdp_frame *xdpf = xdp_convert_buff_to_frame(xdp);
>
>         if (unlikely(!xdpf))
>                 return I40E_XDP_CONSUMED;
>
>         return i40e_xmit_xdp_ring(xdpf, xdp_ring);
>  }
>
>
> > What CPU core do you run on?
>
> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v4 @ 3.60GHz

So significantly higher clocked than my system. Explains your high numbers.

> > It actually looks like
> > your packet data gets prefetched successfully. If it had not, you
> > would have gotten an access to LLC which is much more expensive than
> > the drop you are seeing. If I run on the wrong NUMA node, I get 4
> > Mpps, so it is not that.
> >
> > One interesting thing is that I get better results using the zero-copy
> > path in the driver. I start xdp_rxq_drop then tie an AF_XDP socket to
> > the queue id the XDP program gets its traffic from. The AF_XDP program
> > will get no traffic in this case, but it will force the driver to use
> > the zero-copy path for its XDP processing. In this case I get this:
> >
> > -0.5% for XDP_DROP and +-0% for XDP_TX for i40e.
> >
> > >  You lost -10% performance in this case:
> > >   -3.54 nanosec (35.36*0.10) slower
> > >
> > > In XDP context 3.54 nanosec is a lot, as you can see it is 10% in this
> > > zoom-in benchmark.  We have to look at the details.
> > >
> > > One detail/issue with i40e doing XDP_TX, is that I cannot verify that
> > > packets are actually transmitted... not via exception tracepoint, not
> > > via netstats, not via ethtool_stats.pl.  Maybe all the packets are
> > > getting (silently) drop in my tests...!?!
> > >
> > >
> > > > The xdpsock numbers are more in the ballpark of
> > > > what I would expect.
> > > >
> > > > Tirtha and I found some optimizations in the i40e
> > > > multi-frame/multi-buffer support that we have implemented. Will test
> > > > those next, post the results and share the code.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just note that I would really like for the multi-frame support to get
> > > > > > in. I have lost count on how many people that have asked for it to be
> > > > > > added to XDP and AF_XDP. So please check our implementation and
> > > > > > improve it so we can get the overhead down to where we want it to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > sure, I will do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Lorenzo
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks: Magnus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to reproduce these results in my testlab, in-order to
> > > > > > > figure out where the throughput degradation comes from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What performance do you see with the mvneta card? How much are we
> > > > > > > > willing to pay for this feature when it is not being used or can we in
> > > > > > > > some way selectively turn it on only when needed?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, as Daniel says performance wise we require close to /zero/
> > > > > > > additional overhead, especially as you state this happens when sending
> > > > > > > a single frame, which is a base case that we must not slowdown.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > >   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
> > >   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
> > >
> > >
> > > Running XDP on dev:i40e2 (ifindex:6) action:XDP_DROP options:read
> > > XDP stats       CPU     pps         issue-pps
> > > XDP-RX CPU      2       33,417,775  0
> > > XDP-RX CPU      total   33,417,775
> > >
> > > RXQ stats       RXQ:CPU pps         issue-pps
> > > rx_queue_index    2:2   33,417,775  0
> > > rx_queue_index    2:sum 33,417,775
> > >
> > >
> > > Running XDP on dev:i40e2 (ifindex:6) action:XDP_TX options:swapmac
> > > XDP stats       CPU     pps         issue-pps
> > > XDP-RX CPU      2       28,278,722  0
> > > XDP-RX CPU      total   28,278,722
> > >
> > > RXQ stats       RXQ:CPU pps         issue-pps
> > > rx_queue_index    2:2   28,278,726  0
> > > rx_queue_index    2:sum 28,278,726
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists