On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 06:44:36PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> >> >> > We don't enable network watchdog on virtio but we could and maybe
>>> >> >> > should.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Can you elaborate?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The issue is that holding onto buffers for very long times makes guests
>>> >> > think they are stuck. This is funamentally because from guest point of
>>> >> > view this is a NIC, so it is supposed to transmit things out in
>>> >> > a timely manner. If host backs the virtual NIC by something that is not
>>> >> > a NIC, with traffic shaping etc introducing unbounded latencies,
>>> >> > guest will be confused.
>>> >>
>>> >> That assumes that guests are fragile in this regard. A linux guest
>>> >> does not make such assumptions.
>>> >
>>> > Yes it does. Examples above:
>>> > > > - a single slow flow can occupy the whole ring, you will not
>>> > > > be able to make any new buffers available for the fast flow
>>>
>>> Oh, right. Though those are due to vring_desc pool exhaustion
>>> rather than an upper bound on latency of any single packet.
>>>
>>> Limiting the number of zerocopy packets in flight to some fraction
>>> of the ring ensures that fast flows can always grab a slot.
>>> Running
>>> out of ubuf_info slots reverts to copy, so indirectly does this. But
>>> I read it correclty the zerocopy pool may be equal to or larger than
>>> the descriptor pool. Should we refine the zcopy_used test
>>>
>>> (nvq->upend_idx + 1) % UIO_MAXIOV != nvq->done_idx
>>>
>>> to also return false if the number of outstanding ubuf_info is greater
>>> than, say, vq->num >> 1?
>>
>>
>> We'll need to think about where to put the threshold, but I think it's
>> a good idea.
>>
>> Maybe even a fixed number, e.g. max(vq->num >> 1, X) to limit host
>> resources.
>>
>> In a sense it still means once you run out of slots zcopt gets disabled possibly permanently.
>>
>> Need to experiment with some numbers.
>
> I can take a stab with two flows, one delayed in a deep host qdisc
> queue. See how this change affects the other flow and also how
> sensitive that is to the chosen threshold value.
Incomplete results at this stage, but I do see this correlation between
flows. It occurs even while not running out of zerocopy descriptors,
which I cannot yet explain.
Running two threads in a guest, each with a udp socket, each
sending up to 100 datagrams, or until EAGAIN, every msec.
Sender A sends 1B datagrams.
Sender B sends VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, which is enough
to trigger zcopy_used in vhost net.
A local receive process on the host receives both flows. To avoid
a deep copy when looping the packet onto the receive path,
changed skb_orphan_frags_rx to always return false (gross hack).
The flow with the larger packets is redirected through netem on ifb0:
modprobe ifb
ip link set dev ifb0 up
tc qdisc add dev ifb0 root netem limit $LIMIT rate 1MBit
tc qdisc add dev tap0 ingress
tc filter add dev tap0 parent ffff: protocol ip \
u32 match ip dport 8000 0xffff \
action mirred egress redirect dev ifb0
For 10 second run, packet count with various ifb0 queue lengths $LIMIT:
no filter
rx.A: ~840,000
rx.B: ~840,000
limit 1
rx.A: ~500,000
rx.B: ~3100
ifb0: 3273 sent, 371141 dropped
limit 100
rx.A: ~9000
rx.B: ~4200
ifb0: 4630 sent, 1491 dropped
limit 1000
rx.A: ~6800
rx.B: ~4200
ifb0: 4651 sent, 0 dropped
Sender B is always correctly rate limited to 1 MBps or less. With a
short queue, it ends up dropping a lot and sending even less.
When a queue builds up for sender B, sender A throughput is strongly
correlated with queue length. With queue length 1, it can send almost
at unthrottled speed. But even at limit 100 its throughput is on the
same order as sender B.
What is surprising to me is that this happens even though the number
of ubuf_info in use at limit 100 is around 100 at all times. In other words,
it does not exhaust the pool.
When forcing zcopy_used to be false for all packets, this effect of
sender A throughput being correlated with sender B does not happen.
no filter
rx.A: ~850,000
rx.B: ~850,000
limit 100
rx.A: ~850,000
rx.B: ~4200
ifb0: 4518 sent, 876182 dropped
Also relevant is that with zerocopy, the sender processes back off
and report the same count as the receiver. Without zerocopy,
both senders send at full speed, even if only 4200 packets from flow
B arrive at the receiver.
This is with the default virtio_net driver, so without napi-tx.
It appears that the zerocopy notifications are pausing the guest.
Will look at that now.
By the way, I have had an unrelated patch outstanding for a while
to have virtio-net support the VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_NEEDS_RESET
command. Will send that as RFC.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
