netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] XDP bonding support

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: <CAHn8xcn0CpcmX7fzkWwHWJpXTxVD=9XScCsDYT-bg3+d+5M5zA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:32:47 +0300
From:   Jussi Maki <joamaki@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, vfalico@...il.com,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] XDP bonding support

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:20 PM Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> joamaki@...il.com wrote:
>
> >From: Jussi Maki <joamaki@...il.com>
> >
> >This patchset introduces XDP support to the bonding driver.
> >
> >The motivation for this change is to enable use of bonding (and
> >802.3ad) in hairpinning L4 load-balancers such as [1] implemented with
> >XDP and also to transparently support bond devices for projects that
> >use XDP given most modern NICs have dual port adapters.  An alternative
> >to this approach would be to implement 802.3ad in user-space and
> >implement the bonding load-balancing in the XDP program itself, but
> >is rather a cumbersome endeavor in terms of slave device management
> >(e.g. by watching netlink) and requires separate programs for native
> >vs bond cases for the orchestrator. A native in-kernel implementation
> >overcomes these issues and provides more flexibility.
> >
> >Below are benchmark results done on two machines with 100Gbit
> >Intel E810 (ice) NIC and with 32-core 3970X on sending machine, and
> >16-core 3950X on receiving machine. 64 byte packets were sent with
> >pktgen-dpdk at full rate. Two issues [2, 3] were identified with the
> >ice driver, so the tests were performed with iommu=off and patch [2]
> >applied. Additionally the bonding round robin algorithm was modified
> >to use per-cpu tx counters as high CPU load (50% vs 10%) and high rate
> >of cache misses were caused by the shared rr_tx_counter. Fix for this
> >has been already merged into net-next. The statistics were collected
> >using "sar -n dev -u 1 10".
> >
> > -----------------------|  CPU  |--| rxpck/s |--| txpck/s |----
> > without patch (1 dev):
> >   XDP_DROP:              3.15%      48.6Mpps
> >   XDP_TX:                3.12%      18.3Mpps     18.3Mpps
> >   XDP_DROP (RSS):        9.47%      116.5Mpps
> >   XDP_TX (RSS):          9.67%      25.3Mpps     24.2Mpps
> > -----------------------
> > with patch, bond (1 dev):
> >   XDP_DROP:              3.14%      46.7Mpps
> >   XDP_TX:                3.15%      13.9Mpps     13.9Mpps
> >   XDP_DROP (RSS):        10.33%     117.2Mpps
> >   XDP_TX (RSS):          10.64%     25.1Mpps     24.0Mpps
> > -----------------------
> > with patch, bond (2 devs):
> >   XDP_DROP:              6.27%      92.7Mpps
> >   XDP_TX:                6.26%      17.6Mpps     17.5Mpps
> >   XDP_DROP (RSS):       11.38%      117.2Mpps
> >   XDP_TX (RSS):         14.30%      28.7Mpps     27.4Mpps
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         To be clear, the fact that the performance numbers for XDP_DROP
> and XDP_TX are lower for "with patch, bond (1 dev)" than "without patch
> (1 dev)" is expected, correct?

Yes that is correct. With the patch the ndo callback for choosing the
slave device is invoked which in this test (mode=xor) hashes L2&L3
headers (I seem to have failed to mention this in the original
message). In round-robin mode I recall it being about 16Mpps versus
the 18Mpps without the patch. I did also try "INDIRECT_CALL" to avoid
going via ndo_ops, but that had no discernible effect.