[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240220120821.1Tbz6IeI@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:08:21 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/2] net: Reference bpf_redirect_info via
task_struct on PREEMPT_RT.
On 2024-02-20 11:42:57 [+0100], Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> This seems low...
> Have you remembered to disable Ethernet flow-control?
No but one side says:
| i40e 0000:3d:00.1 eno2np1: NIC Link is Up, 10 Gbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None
but I did this
> # ethtool -A ixgbe1 rx off tx off
> # ethtool -A i40e2 rx off tx off
and it didn't change much.
>
> > | Summary 8,436,294 rx/s 0 err/s
>
> You want to see the "extended" info via cmdline (or Ctrl+\)
>
> # xdp-bench drop -e eth1
>
>
> >
> > with "-t 8 -b 64". I started with 2 and then increased until rx/s was
> > falling again. I have ixgbe on the sending side and i40e on the
>
> With ixgbe on the sending side, my testlab shows I need -t 2.
>
> With -t 2 :
> Summary 14,678,170 rx/s 0 err/s
> receive total 14,678,170 pkt/s 14,678,170 drop/s 0
> error/s
> cpu:1 14,678,170 pkt/s 14,678,170 drop/s 0
> error/s
> xdp_exception 0 hit/s
>
> with -t 4:
>
> Summary 10,255,385 rx/s 0 err/s
> receive total 10,255,385 pkt/s 10,255,385 drop/s 0
> error/s
> cpu:1 10,255,385 pkt/s 10,255,385 drop/s 0
> error/s
> xdp_exception 0 hit/s
>
> > receiving side. I tried to receive on ixgbe but this ended with -ENOMEM
> > | # xdp-bench drop eth1
> > | Failed to attach XDP program: Cannot allocate memory
> >
> > This is v6.8-rc5 on both sides. Let me see where this is coming from…
> >
>
> Another pitfall with ixgbe is that it does a full link reset when
> adding/removing XDP prog on device. This can be annoying if connected
> back-to-back, because "remote" pktgen will stop on link reset.
so I replaced nr_cpu_ids with 64 and bootet maxcpus=64 so that I can run
xdp-bench on the ixbe.
so. i40 send, ixgbe receive.
-t 2
| Summary 2,348,800 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 2,348,800 pkt/s 2,348,800 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:0 2,348,800 pkt/s 2,348,800 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 4
| Summary 4,158,199 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 4,158,199 pkt/s 4,158,199 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:0 4,158,199 pkt/s 4,158,199 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 8
| Summary 5,612,861 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 5,612,861 pkt/s 5,612,861 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:0 5,612,861 pkt/s 5,612,861 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
going higher makes the rate drop. With 8 it floats between 5,5… 5,7…
Doing "ethtool -G eno2np1 tx 4096 rx 4096" on the i40 makes it worse,
using the default 512/512 gets the numbers from above, going below 256
makes it worse.
receiving on i40, sending on ixgbe:
-t 2
|Summary 3,042,957 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 3,042,957 pkt/s 3,042,957 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 3,042,957 pkt/s 3,042,957 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 4
|Summary 5,442,166 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 5,442,166 pkt/s 5,442,166 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 5,442,166 pkt/s 5,442,166 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 6
| Summary 7,023,406 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 7,023,406 pkt/s 7,023,406 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 7,023,406 pkt/s 7,023,406 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 8
| Summary 7,540,915 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 7,540,915 pkt/s 7,540,915 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 7,540,915 pkt/s 7,540,915 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 10
|Summary 7,699,143 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 7,699,143 pkt/s 7,699,143 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 7,699,143 pkt/s 7,699,143 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
-t 18
| Summary 7,784,946 rx/s 0 err/s
| receive total 7,784,946 pkt/s 7,784,946 drop/s 0 error/s
| cpu:60 7,784,946 pkt/s 7,784,946 drop/s 0 error/s
| xdp_exception 0 hit/s
after t18 it drop down to 2,…
Now I got worse than before since -t8 says 7,5… and it did 8,4 in the
morning. Do you have maybe a .config for me in case I did not enable the
performance switch?
> --Jesper
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists