On 31.05.24 10:15, Guangguan Wang wrote:
On 2024/5/30 00:28, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
On 28.05.24 15:51, Guangguan Wang wrote:
SMCR_RMBE_SIZES is the upper boundary of SMC-R's snd_buf and rcv_buf.
The maximum bytes of snd_buf and rcv_buf can be calculated by 2^SMCR_
RMBE_SIZES * 16KB. SMCR_RMBE_SIZES = 5 means the upper boundary is 512KB.
TCP's snd_buf and rcv_buf max size is configured by net.ipv4.tcp_w/rmem[2]
whose defalut value is 4MB or 6MB, is much larger than SMC-R's upper
boundary.
In some scenarios, such as Recommendation System, the communication
pattern is mainly large size send/recv, where the size of snd_buf and
rcv_buf greatly affects performance. Due to the upper boundary
disadvantage, SMC-R performs poor than TCP in those scenarios. So it
is time to enlarge the upper boundary size of SMC-R's snd_buf and rcv_buf,
so that the SMC-R's snd_buf and rcv_buf can be configured to larger size
for performance gain in such scenarios.
The SMC-R rcv_buf's size will be transferred to peer by the field
rmbe_size in clc accept and confirm message. The length of the field
rmbe_size is four bits, which means the maximum value of SMCR_RMBE_SIZES
is 15. In case of frequently adjusting the value of SMCR_RMBE_SIZES
in different scenarios, set the value of SMCR_RMBE_SIZES to the maximum
value 15, which means the upper boundary of SMC-R's snd_buf and rcv_buf
is 512MB. As the real memory usage is determined by the value of
net.smc.w/rmem, not by the upper boundary, set the value of SMCR_RMBE_SIZES
to the maximum value has no side affects.
Hi Guangguan,
That is correct that the maximum buffer(snd_buf and rcv_buf) size of SMCR is much smaller than TCP's. If I remember correctly, that was because the 512KB was enough for the traffic and did not waist memory space after some experiment. Sure, that was years ago, and it could be very different nowadays. But I'm still curious if you have any concrete scenario with performance benchmark which shows the distinguish disadvantage of the current maximum buffer size.
Hi Wenjia,
The performance benchmark can be "Wide & Deep Recommender Model Training in TensorFlow" (https://github.com/NVIDIA/DeepLearningExamples/tree/master/TensorFlow/Recommendation/WideAndDeep).
The related paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07792.
The performance unit is steps/s, where a higher value indicates better performance.
1) using 512KB snd_buf/recv_buf for SMC-R, default(4MB snd_buf/6MB recv_buf) for TCP:
SMC-R performance vs TCP performance = 24.21 steps/s vs 24.85 steps/s
ps smcr stat:
RX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 37600503985 (37.60G)
Total requests 677841
Buffer full 40074 (5.91%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Reqs 178.2K 12.69K 8.125K 45.71K 23.51K 20.75K 60.16K 0
TX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 118471581684 (118.5G)
Total requests 874395
Buffer full 343080 (39.24%)
Buffer full (remote) 468523 (53.58%)
Buffer too small 607914 (69.52%)
Buffer too small (remote) 607914 (69.52%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Reqs 119.7K 3.169K 2.662K 5.583K 8.523K 21.55K 34.58K 318.0K
worker smcr stat:
RX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 118471581723 (118.5G)
Total requests 835959
Buffer full 99227 (11.87%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Reqs 125.4K 13.14K 17.49K 16.78K 34.27K 34.12K 223.8K 0
TX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 37600504139 (37.60G)
Total requests 606822
Buffer full 86597 (14.27%)
Buffer full (remote) 156098 (25.72%)
Buffer too small 154218 (25.41%)
Buffer too small (remote) 154218 (25.41%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Reqs 323.6K 13.26K 6.979K 50.84K 19.43K 14.46K 8.231K 81.80K
2) using 4MB snd_buf and 6MB recv_buf for SMC-R, default(4MB snd_buf/6MB recv_buf) for TCP:
SMC-R performance vs TCP performance = 29.35 steps/s vs 24.85 steps/s
ps smcr stat:
RX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 110853495554 (110.9G)
Total requests 1165230
Buffer full 0 (0.00%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Reqs 340.2K 29.65K 19.58K 76.32K 55.37K 39.15K 7.042K 43.88K
TX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 349072090590 (349.1G)
Total requests 922705
Buffer full 154765 (16.77%)
Buffer full (remote) 309940 (33.59%)
Buffer too small 46896 (5.08%)
Buffer too small (remote) 14304 (1.55%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Reqs 420.8K 11.15K 3.609K 12.28K 13.05K 26.08K 22.13K 240.3K
worker smcr stat:
RX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 349072090590 (349.1G)
Total requests 585165
Buffer full 0 (0.00%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Reqs 155.4K 13.42K 4.070K 4.462K 3.628K 9.720K 12.01K 165.0K
TX Stats
Data transmitted (Bytes) 110854684711 (110.9G)
Total requests 1052628
Buffer full 34760 (3.30%)
Buffer full (remote) 77630 (7.37%)
Buffer too small 22330 (2.12%)
Buffer too small (remote) 7040 (0.67%)
8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB 256KB 512KB >512KB
Bufs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Reqs 666.3K 38.43K 20.65K 135.1K 54.19K 36.69K 3.948K 56.42K
From the above smcr stat, we can see quantities send/recv with large size more than 512KB, and quantities send blocked due to
buffer full or buffer too small. And when configured with larger send/recv buffer, we get less send block and better performance.
That is exactly what I asked for, thank you for the details! Please give
me some days to try by ourselves. If the performance is also significant
as yours and no other side effect, why not?!
