On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2020/7/10 上午1:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:46:13PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:10 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2020/7/1 下午9:04, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:40 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> On 2020/7/1 下午6:43, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:15 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > >>>>>> <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:29 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > >>>>>>>>>>> <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > >>>>>>>>>>>> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Konrad. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I tested this version of the patch: > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html) > >>>>>>>>>>>> and kernel pktgen. No latency tests were performed by me. Maybe it is > >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to perform a latency test or just a different set of tests > >>>>>>>>>>>> over a recent version. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>> I have repeated the tests with v9, and results are a little bit different: > >>>>>>>>>>> * If I test opening it with testpmd, I see no change between versions > >>>>>>>>>> OK that is testpmd on guest, right? And vhost-net on the host? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Michael. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, sorry, as described in > >>>>>>>>> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html. > >>>>>>>>> But I could add to test it in the guest too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These kinds of raw packets "bursts" do not show performance > >>>>>>>>> differences, but I could test deeper if you think it would be worth > >>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>> Oh ok, so this is without guest, with virtio-user. > >>>>>>>> It might be worth checking dpdk within guest too just > >>>>>>>> as another data point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ok, I will do it! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> * If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest > >>>>>>>>>>> using a linux bridge in the host: > >>>>>>>>>> And here I guess you mean virtio-net in the guest kernel? > >>>>>>>>> Yes, sorry: Two virtio-net interfaces connected with a linux bridge in > >>>>>>>>> the host. More precisely: > >>>>>>>>> * Adding one of the interfaces to another namespace, assigning it an > >>>>>>>>> IP, and starting netserver there. > >>>>>>>>> * Assign another IP in the range manually to the other virtual net > >>>>>>>>> interface, and start the desired test there. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If you think it would be better to perform then differently please let me know. > >>>>>>>> Not sure why you bother with namespaces since you said you are > >>>>>>>> using L2 bridging. I guess it's unimportant. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry, I think I should have provided more context about that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The only reason to use namespaces is to force the traffic of these > >>>>>>> netperf tests to go through the external bridge. To test netperf > >>>>>>> different possibilities than the testpmd (or pktgen or others "blast > >>>>>>> of frames unconditionally" tests). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This way, I make sure that is the same version of everything in the > >>>>>>> guest, and is a little bit easier to manage cpu affinity, start and > >>>>>>> stop testing... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I could use a different VM for sending and receiving, but I find this > >>>>>>> way a faster one and it should not introduce a lot of noise. I can > >>>>>>> test with two VM if you think that this use of network namespace > >>>>>>> introduces too much noise. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - netperf UDP_STREAM shows a performance increase of 1.8, almost > >>>>>>>>>>> doubling performance. This gets lower as frame size increase. > >>>>>> Regarding UDP_STREAM: > >>>>>> * with event_idx=on: The performance difference is reduced a lot if > >>>>>> applied affinity properly (manually assigning CPU on host/guest and > >>>>>> setting IRQs on guest), making them perform equally with and without > >>>>>> the patch again. Maybe the batching makes the scheduler perform > >>>>>> better. > >>>>> Note that for UDP_STREAM, the result is pretty trick to be analyzed. E.g > >>>>> setting a sndbuf for TAP may help for the performance (reduce the drop). > >>>>> > >>>> Ok, will add that to the test. Thanks! > >>> > >>> Actually, it's better to skip the UDP_STREAM test since: > >>> > >>> - My understanding is very few application is using raw UDP stream > >>> - It's hard to analyze (usually you need to count the drop ratio etc) > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - rests of the test goes noticeably worse: UDP_RR goes from ~6347 > >>>>>>>>>>> transactions/sec to 5830 > >>>>>> * Regarding UDP_RR, TCP_STREAM, and TCP_RR, proper CPU pinning makes > >>>>>> them perform similarly again, only a very small performance drop > >>>>>> observed. It could be just noise. > >>>>>> ** All of them perform better than vanilla if event_idx=off, not sure > >>>>>> why. I can try to repeat them if you suspect that can be a test > >>>>>> failure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * With testpmd and event_idx=off, if I send from the VM to host, I see > >>>>>> a performance increment especially in small packets. The buf api also > >>>>>> increases performance compared with only batching: Sending the minimum > >>>>>> packet size in testpmd makes pps go from 356kpps to 473 kpps. > >>>>> What's your setup for this. The number looks rather low. I'd expected > >>>>> 1-2 Mpps at least. > >>>>> > >>>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2 NUMA nodes of 16G memory > >>>> each, and no device assigned to the NUMA node I'm testing in. Too low > >>>> for testpmd AF_PACKET driver too? > >>> > >>> I don't test AF_PACKET, I guess it should use the V3 which mmap based > >>> zerocopy interface. > >>> > >>> And it might worth to check the cpu utilization of vhost thread. It's > >>> required to stress it as 100% otherwise there could be a bottleneck > >>> somewhere. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> Sending > >>>>>> 1024 length UDP-PDU makes it go from 570kpps to 64 kpps. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Something strange I observe in these tests: I get more pps the bigger > >>>>>> the transmitted buffer size is. Not sure why. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ** Sending from the host to the VM does not make a big change with the > >>>>>> patches in small packets scenario (minimum, 64 bytes, about 645 > >>>>>> without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets > >>>>>> are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, > >>>>> I think you meant bytes? > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, sorry. > >>>> > >>>>>> it goes > >>>>>> from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it > >>>>>> gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in > >>>>>> both directions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a > >>>>>> host's tap interface (<interface type='ethernet'> in xml), > >>>>> What DPDK driver did you use in the test (AF_PACKET?). > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, both testpmd are using AF_PACKET driver. > >>> > >>> I see, using AF_PACKET means extra layers of issues need to be analyzed > >>> which is probably not good. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> with a > >>>>>> testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the > >>>>>> receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts, > >>>>>> and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to > >>>>>> schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors. > >>>>> My feeling is that if we start from simple setup, it would be more > >>>>> easier as a start. E.g start without an VM. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) TX: testpmd(txonly) -> virtio-user -> vhost_net -> XDP_DROP on TAP > >>>>> 2) RX: pkgetn -> TAP -> vhost_net -> testpmd(rxonly) > >>>>> > >>>> Got it. Is there a reason to prefer pktgen over testpmd? > >>> > >>> I think the reason is using testpmd you must use a userspace kernel > >>> interface (AF_PACKET), and it could not be as fast as pktgen since: > >>> > >>> - it talks directly to xmit of TAP > >>> - skb can be cloned > >>> > >> Hi! > >> > >> Here it is the result of the tests. Details on [1]. > >> > >> Tx: > >> === > >> > >> For tx packets it seems that the batching patch makes things a little > >> bit worse, but the buf_api outperforms baseline by a 7%: > >> > >> * We start with a baseline of 4208772.571 pps and 269361444.6 bytes/s [2]. > >> * When we add the batching, I see a small performance decrease: > >> 4133292.308 and 264530707.7 bytes/s. > >> * However, the buf api it outperform the baseline: 4551319.631pps, > >> 291205178.1 bytes/s > >> > >> I don't have numbers on the receiver side since it is just a XDP_DROP. > >> I think it would be interesting to see them. > >> > >> Rx: > >> === > >> > >> Regarding Rx, the reverse is observed: a small performance increase is > >> observed with batching (~2%), but buf_api makes tests perform equally > >> to baseline. > >> > >> pktgen was called using pktgen_sample01_simple.sh, with the environment: > >> DEV="$tap_name" F_THREAD=1 DST_MAC=$MAC_ADDR COUNT=$((2500000*25)) > >> SKB_CLONE=$((2**31)) > >> > >> And testpmd is the same as Tx but with forward-mode=rxonly. > >> > >> Pktgen reports: > >> Baseline: 1853025pps 622Mb/sec (622616400bps) errors: 7915231 > >> Batch: 1891404pps 635Mb/sec (635511744bps) errors: 4926093 > >> Buf_api: 1844008pps 619Mb/sec (619586688bps) errors: 47766692 > >> > >> Testpmd reports: > >> Baseline: 1854448pps, 860464156 bps. [3] > >> Batch: 1892844.25pps, 878280070bps. > >> Buf_api: 1846139.75pps, 856609120bps. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> [1] > >> Testpmd options: -l 1,3 > >> --vdev=virtio_user0,mac=01:02:03:04:05:06,path=/dev/vhost-net,queue_size=1024 > >> -- --auto-start --stats-period 5 --tx-offloads="$TX_OFFLOADS" > >> --rx-offloads="$RX_OFFLOADS" --txd=4096 --rxd=4096 --burst=512 > >> --forward-mode=txonly > >> > >> Where offloads were obtained manually running with > >> --[tr]x-offloads=0x8fff and examining testpmd response: > >> declare -r RX_OFFLOADS=0x81d > >> declare -r TX_OFFLOADS=0x802d > >> > >> All of the tests results are an average of at least 3 samples of > >> testpmd, discarding the obvious deviations at start/end (like warming > >> up or waiting for pktgen to start). The result of pktgen is directly > >> c&p from its output. > >> > >> The numbers do not change very much from one stats printing to another > >> of testpmd. > >> > >> [2] Obtained subtracting each accumulated tx-packets from one stats > >> print to the previous one. If we attend testpmd output about Tx-pps, > >> it counts a little bit less performance, but it follows the same > >> pattern: > >> > >> Testpmd pps/bps stats: > >> Baseline: 3510826.25 pps, 1797887912bps = 224735989bytes/sec > >> Batch: 3448515.571pps, 1765640226bps = 220705028.3bytes/sec > >> Buf api: 3794115.333pps, 1942587286bps = 242823410.8bytes/sec > >> > >> [3] This is obtained using the rx-pps/rx-bps report of testpmd. > >> > >> Seems strange to me that the relation between pps/bps is ~336 this > >> time, and between accumulated pkts/accumulated bytes is ~58. Also, the > >> relation between them is not even close to 8. > >> > >> However, testpmd shows a lot of absolute packets received. If we see > >> the received packets in a period subtracting from the previous one, > >> testpmd tells that receive more pps than pktgen tx-pps: > >> Baseline: ~2222668.667pps 128914784.3bps. > >> Batch: 2269260.933pps, 131617134.9bps > >> Buf_api: 2213226.467pps, 128367135.9bp > > How about playing with the batch size? Make it a mod parameter instead > > of the hard coded 64, and measure for all values 1 to 64 ... > > > Right, according to the test result, 64 seems to be too aggressive in > the case of TX. > Got it, thanks both! > And it might also be worth to check: > > 1) Whether vhost thread is stressed as 100% CPU utilization, if not, > there's bottleneck elsewhere I forgot to check this, sorry. Will check in the next test. > 2) For RX test, make sure pktgen kthread is running in the same NUMA > node with virtio-user > It is allocated 1 thread in lcore 1 (F_THREAD=1) which belongs to the same NUMA as testpmd. Actually, it is the testpmd master core, so it should be a good idea to move it to another lcore of the same NUMA node. Is this enough for pktgen to allocate the memory in that numa node? Since the script only write parameters to /proc, I assume that it has no effect to run it under numactl/taskset, and pktgen will allocate memory based on the lcore is running. Am I right? Thanks! > Thanks > > > > >
