[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f90f500-ed4c-0650-0044-1cd1e3a632c3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:49:40 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Cc: David Chen <david.chen@...anix.com>,
Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Malek Imam <mimam@...dia.com>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Talat Batheesh <talatb@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: Bug report: UDP ~20% degradation
On 12/02/2023 13:50, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/02/2023 16:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Tariq,
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 12:09, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Our performance verification team spotted a degradation of up to ~20% in
>>> UDP performance, for a specific combination of parameters.
>>>
>>> Our matrix covers several parameters values, like:
>>> IP version: 4/6
>>> MTU: 1500/9000
>>> Msg size: 64/1452/8952 (only when applicable while avoiding ip
>>> fragmentation).
>>> Num of streams: 1/8/16/24.
>>> Num of directions: unidir/bidir.
>>>
>>> Surprisingly, the issue exists only with this specific combination:
>>> 8 streams,
>>> MTU 9000,
>>> Msg size 8952,
>>> both ipv4/6,
>>> bidir.
>>> (in unidir it repros only with ipv4)
>>>
>>> The reproduction is consistent on all the different setups we tested
>>> with.
>>>
>>> Bisect [2] was done between these two points, v5.19 (Good), and v6.0-rc1
>>> (Bad), with ConnectX-6DX NIC.
>>>
>>> c82a69629c53eda5233f13fc11c3c01585ef48a2 is the first bad commit [1].
>>>
>>> We couldn't come up with a good explanation how this patch causes this
>>> issue. We also looked for related changes in the networking/UDP stack,
>>> but nothing looked suspicious.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone here can help with this.
>>> We can provide more details or do further tests/experiments to progress
>>> with the debug.
>>
>> Could you share more details about your system and the cpu topology ?
>>
>
> output for 'lscpu':
>
> Architecture: x86_64
> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
> Address sizes: 40 bits physical, 57 bits virtual
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 24
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-23
> Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
> BIOS Vendor ID: QEMU
> Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8380 CPU @
> 2.30GHz
> BIOS Model name: pc-q35-5.0
> CPU family: 6
> Model: 106
> Thread(s) per core: 1
> Core(s) per socket: 1
> Socket(s): 24
> Stepping: 6
> BogoMIPS: 4589.21
> Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic
> sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss syscall nx
> pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon rep_good nopl xtopology
> cpuid tsc_known_freq pni pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16 pdcm pcid sse4_1
> sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand
> hypervisor lahf_lm abm 3dnowprefetch cpuid_fault invpcid_single ssbd
> ibrs ibpb stibp ibrs_enhanced tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid
> ept_ad fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid avx512f
> avx512dq rdseed adx smap avx512ifma clflushopt clwb avx512cd sha_ni
> avx512bw avx512vl xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves wbnoinvd arat
> avx512vbmi umip pku ospke avx512_vbmi2 gfni vaes vpclmulqdq avx512_vnni
> avx512_bitalg avx512_vpopcntdq rdpid md_clear arch_capabilities
> Virtualization: VT-x
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: full
> L1d cache: 768 KiB (24 instances)
> L1i cache: 768 KiB (24 instances)
> L2 cache: 96 MiB (24 instances)
> L3 cache: 384 MiB (24 instances)
> NUMA node(s): 1
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-23
> Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
> Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
> Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
> Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
> Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers
> attempted, no microcode; SMT Host state unknown
> Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
> Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass
> disabled via prctl
> Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers
> and __user pointer sanitization
> Vulnerability Spectre v2: Vulnerable: eIBRS with unprivileged eBPF
> Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
> Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
>
>> The commit c82a69629c53 migrates a task on an idle cpu when the task
>> is the only one running on local cpu but the time spent by this local
>> cpu under interrupt or RT context becomes significant (10%-17%)
>> I can imagine that 16/24 stream overload your system so load_balance
>> doesn't end up in this case and the cpus are busy with several
>> threads. On the other hand, 1 stream is small enough to keep your
>> system lightly loaded but 8 streams make your system significantly
>> loaded to trigger the reduced capacity case but still not overloaded.
>>
>
> I see. Makes sense.
> 1. How do you check this theory? Any suggested tests/experiments?
> 2. How do you suggest this degradation should be fixed?
>
Hi,
A kind reminder.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists