On 07/06/2012 01:45 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
On 07/05/2012 03:29 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
Test result:
1) 1 vm 2 vcpu 1q vs 2q, 1 - 1q, 2 - 2q, no pinning
- Guest to External Host TCP STREAM
sessions size throughput1 throughput2 norm1 norm2
1 64 650.55 655.61 100% 24.88 24.86 99%
2 64 1446.81 1309.44 90% 30.49 27.16 89%
4 64 1430.52 1305.59 91% 30.78 26.80 87%
8 64 1450.89 1270.82 87% 30.83 25.95 84%
Was the -D test-specific option used to set TCP_NODELAY? I'm guessing
from your description of how packet sizes were smaller with multiqueue
and your need to hack tcp_write_xmit() it wasn't but since we don't
have the specific netperf command lines (hint hint :) I wanted to make
certain.
Hi Rick:
I didn't specify -D for disabling Nagle. I also collects rx packets and
average packet size:
Guest to External Host ( 2vcpu 1q vs 2q )
sessions size tput-sq tput-mq % norm-sq norm-mq % #tx-pkts-sq
#tx-pkts-mq % avg-sz-sq avg-sz-mq %
1 64 668.85 671.13 100% 25.80 26.86 104% 629038 627126 99% 1395 1403 100%
2 64 1421.29 1345.40 94% 32.06 27.57 85% 1318498 1246721 94% 1413 1414 100%
4 64 1469.96 1365.42 92% 32.44 27.04 83% 1362542 1277848 93% 1414 1401 99%
8 64 1131.00 1361.58 120% 24.81 26.76 107% 1223700 1280970 104% 1395
1394 99%
1 256 1883.98 1649.87 87% 60.67 58.48 96% 1542775 1465836 95% 1592 1472 92%
2 256 4847.09 3539.74 73% 98.35 64.05 65% 2683346 3074046 114% 2323 1505 64%
4 256 5197.33 3283.48 63% 109.14 62.39 57% 1819814 2929486 160% 3636
1467 40%
8 256 5953.53 3359.22 56% 122.75 64.21 52% 906071 2924148 322% 8282 1502 18%
1 512 3019.70 2646.07 87% 93.89 86.78 92% 2003780 2256077 112% 1949 1532 78%
2 512 7455.83 5861.03 78% 173.79 104.43 60% 1200322 3577142 298% 7831
2114 26%
4 512 8962.28 7062.20 78% 213.08 127.82 59% 468142 2594812 554% 24030
3468 14%
8 512 7849.82 8523.85 108% 175.41 154.19 87% 304923 1662023 545% 38640
6479 16%
When multiqueue were enabled, it does have a higher packets per second
but with a much more smaller packet size. It looks to me that multiqueue
is faster and guest tcp have less oppotunity to build a larger skbs to
send, so lots of small packet were required to send which leads to much
more #exit and vhost works. One interesting thing is, if I run tcpdump
in the host where guest run, I can get obvious throughput increasing. To
verify the assumption, I hack the tcp_write_xmit() with following patch
and set tcp_tso_win_divisor=1, then I multiqueue can outperform or at
least get the same throughput as singlequeue, though it could introduce
latency but I havent' measured it.
I'm not expert of tcp, but looks like the changes are reasonable:
- we can do full-sized TSO check in tcp_tso_should_defer() only for
westwood, according to tcp westwood
- run tcp_tso_should_defer for tso_segs = 1 when tso is enabled.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
index c465d3e..166a888 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
@@ -1567,7 +1567,7 @@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struct sock *sk,
struct sk_buff *skb)
in_flight = tcp_packets_in_flight(tp);
- BUG_ON(tcp_skb_pcount(skb) <= 1 || (tp->snd_cwnd <= in_flight));
+ BUG_ON(tp->snd_cwnd <= in_flight);
send_win = tcp_wnd_end(tp) - TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq;
@@ -1576,9 +1576,11 @@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struct sock *sk,
struct sk_buff *skb)
limit = min(send_win, cong_win);
+#if 0
/* If a full-sized TSO skb can be sent, do it. */
if (limit >= sk->sk_gso_max_size)
goto send_now;
+#endif
/* Middle in queue won't get any more data, full sendable
already? */
if ((skb != tcp_write_queue_tail(sk)) && (limit >= skb->len))
@@ -1795,10 +1797,9 @@ static bool tcp_write_xmit(struct sock *sk,
unsigned int mss_now, int nonagle,
(tcp_skb_is_last(sk, skb) ?
nonagle :
TCP_NAGLE_PUSH))))
break;
- } else {
- if (!push_one && tcp_tso_should_defer(sk, skb))
- break;
}
+ if (!push_one && tcp_tso_should_defer(sk, skb))
+ break;
limit = mss_now;
if (tso_segs > 1 && !tcp_urg_mode(tp))
Instead of calling them throughput1 and throughput2, it might be more
clear in future to identify them as singlequeue and multiqueue.
Sure.
Also, how are you combining the concurrent netperf results? Are you
taking sums of what netperf reports, or are you gathering statistics
outside of netperf?
The throughput were just sumed from netperf result like what netperf
manual suggests. The cpu utilization were measured by mpstat.
- TCP RR
sessions size throughput1 throughput2 norm1 norm2
50 1 54695.41 84164.98 153% 1957.33 1901.31 97%
A single instance TCP_RR test would help confirm/refute any
non-trivial change in (effective) path length between the two cases.
Yes, I would test this thanks.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
