Re: [PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit

[Jason Wang]

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
>> > any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
>> > transmission. Consider the following setup:
>> > 
>> >     +-----+        +-----+
>> >     | VM1 |        | VM2 |
>> >     +--+--+        +--+--+
>> >        |              |
>> >     +--+--+        +--+--+
>> >     | tap0|        | tap1|
>> >     +--+--+        +--+--+
>> >        |              |
>> >     pfifo_fast   htb(10Mbit/s)
>> >        |              |
>> >     +--+--------------+---+
>> >     |     bridge          |
>> >     +--+------------------+
>> >        |
>> >     pfifo_fast
>> >        |
>> >     +-----+
>> >     | eth0|(100Mbit/s)
>> >     +-----+
>> > 
>> > - start two VMs and connect them to a bridge
>> > - add an physical card (100Mbit/s) to that bridge
>> > - setup htb on tap1 and limit its throughput to 10Mbit/s
>> > - run two netperfs in the same time, one is from VM1 to VM2. Another is
>> >   from VM1 to an external host through eth0.
>> > - result shows that not only the VM1 to VM2 traffic were throttled but
>> >   also the VM1 to external host through eth0 is also throttled somehow.
>> > 
>> > This is because the delay added by htb may lead the delay the finish
>> > of DMAs and cause the pending DMAs for tap0 exceeds the limit
>> > (VHOST_MAX_PEND). In this case vhost stop handling tx request until
>> > htb send some packets. The problem here is all of the packets
>> > transmission were blocked even if it does not go to VM2.
>> > 
>> > We can solve this issue by relaxing it a little bit: switching to use
>> > data copy instead of stopping tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> > exceed half of the vq size. This is safe because:
>> > 
>> > - The number of pending DMAs were still limited (half of the vq size)
>> > - The out of order completion during mode switch can make sure that
>> >   most of the tx buffers were freed in time in guest.
>> > 
>> > So even if about 50% packets were delayed in zero-copy case, vhost
>> > could continue to do the transmission through data copy in this case.
>> > 
>> > Test result:
>> > 
>> > Before this patch:
>> > VM1 to VM2 throughput is 9.3Mbit/s
>> > VM1 to External throughput is 40Mbit/s
>> > CPU utilization is 7%
>> > 
>> > After this patch:
>> > VM1 to VM2 throughput is 9.3Mbit/s
>> > Vm1 to External throughput is 93Mbit/s
>> > CPU utilization is 16%
>> > 
>> > Completed performance test on 40gbe shows no obvious changes in both
>> > throughput and cpu utilization with this patch.
>> > 
>> > The patch only solve this issue when unlimited sndbuf. We still need a
>> > solution for limited sndbuf.
>> > 
>> > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I thought hard about this.
> Here's what worries me: if there are still head of line
> blocking issues lurking in the stack, they will still
> hurt guests such as windows which rely on timely
> completion of buffers, but it makes it
> that much harder to reproduce the problems with
> linux guests which don't.
> And this will make even it harder to figure out
> whether zero copy is actually active to diagnose
> high cpu utilization cases.

Yes.
>
>
> So I think this is a good trick, but let's make
> this path conditional on a new debugging module parameter:
> how about head_of_line_blocking with default off?

Sure. But the head of line blocking was only partially solved in the
patch since we only support in-order completion of zerocopy packets.
Maybe we need consider switching to out of order completion even for
zerocopy skbs?
> This way if we suspect packets are delayed forever
> somewhere, we can enable that and see guest networking block.
>
> Additionally, I think we should add a way to count zero copy
> and non zero copy packets.
> I see two ways to implement this: add tracepoints in vhost-net
> or add counters in tun accessible with ethtool.
> This can be a patch on top and does not have to block
> this one though.
>

Yes, I post a RFC about 2 years ago, see
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/9/478 which only traces generic vhost
behaviours. I can refresh this and add some -net specific tracepoints.
--
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/