netdev - Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

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: <20240516083100-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:31:59 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:54:58PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, May 16, 2024 at 06:48:38AM CEST, jasowang@...hat.com wrote:
> >On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 8:54 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:12:51PM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
> >> >Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:20:04AM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >>On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:34:08AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >>> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:27:08PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >>> >On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >>> >> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:52:52PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >>> >> >On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> Thu, May 09, 2024 at 04:28:12PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:31:56PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> Thu, May 09, 2024 at 02:41:39PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:46:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Add support for Byte Queue Limits (BQL).
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> >> >Can we get more detail on the benefits you observe etc?
> >> >>> >> >> >> >Thanks!
> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> >> More info about the BQL in general is here:
> >> >>> >> >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/469652/
> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> >I know about BQL in general. We discussed BQL for virtio in the past
> >> >>> >> >> >mostly I got the feedback from net core maintainers that it likely won't
> >> >>> >> >> >benefit virtio.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Do you have some link to that, or is it this thread:
> >> >>> >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/21384cb5-99a6-7431-1039-b356521e1bc3@redhat.com/
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >A quick search on lore turned up this, for example:
> >> >>> >> >https://lore.kernel.org/all/a11eee78-b2a1-3dbc-4821-b5f4bfaae819@gmail.com/
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Says:
> >> >>> >> "Note that NIC with many TX queues make BQL almost useless, only adding extra
> >> >>> >>  overhead."
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> But virtio can have one tx queue, I guess that could be quite common
> >> >>> >> configuration in lot of deployments.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Not sure we should worry about performance for these though.
> >> >>> >What I am saying is this should come with some benchmarking
> >> >>> >results.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I did some measurements with VDPA, backed by ConnectX6dx NIC, single
> >> >>> queue pair:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> super_netperf 200 -H $ip -l 45 -t TCP_STREAM &
> >> >>> nice -n 20 netperf -H $ip -l 10 -t TCP_RR
> >> >>>
> >> >>> RR result with no bql:
> >> >>> 29.95
> >> >>> 32.74
> >> >>> 28.77
> >> >>>
> >> >>> RR result with bql:
> >> >>> 222.98
> >> >>> 159.81
> >> >>> 197.88
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Okay. And on the other hand, any measureable degradation with
> >> >>multiqueue and when testing throughput?
> >> >
> >> >With multiqueue it depends if the flows hits the same queue or not. If
> >> >they do, the same results will likely be shown.
> >>
> >> RR 1q, w/o bql:
> >> 29.95
> >> 32.74
> >> 28.77
> >>
> >> RR 1q, with bql:
> >> 222.98
> >> 159.81
> >> 197.88
> >>
> >> RR 4q, w/o bql:
> >> 355.82
> >> 364.58
> >> 233.47
> >>
> >> RR 4q, with bql:
> >> 371.19
> >> 255.93
> >> 337.77
> >>
> >> So answer to your question is: "no measurable degradation with 4
> >> queues".
> >
> >Thanks but I think we also need benchmarks in cases other than vDPA.
> >For example, a simple virtualization setup.
> 
> For virtualization setup, I get this:
> 
> VIRT RR 1q, w/0 bql:
> 49.18
> 49.75
> 50.07
> 
> VIRT RR 1q, with bql:
> 51.33
> 47.88
> 40.40
> 
> No measurable/significant difference.

Seems the results became much noisier? Also
I'd expect a regression if any to be in a streaming benchmark.

-- 
MST