Re: epoll_wait() performance

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:39:44 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ...
> > > While using recvmmsg() to read multiple messages might seem a good idea, it is much
> > > slower than recv() when there is only one message (even recvmsg() is a lot slower).
> > > (I'm not sure why the code paths are so slow, I suspect it is all the copy_from_user()
> > > and faffing with the user iov[].)
> > >
> > > So using poll() we repoll the fd after calling recv() to find is there is a second message.
> > > However the second poll has a significant performance cost (but less than using recvmmsg()).  
> > 
> > That sounds wrong. Single recvmmsg(), even when receiving only a
> > single message, should be faster than two syscalls - recv() and
> > poll().  
> 
> My suspicion is the extra two copy_from_user() needed for each recvmsg are a
> significant overhead, most likely due to the crappy code that tries to stop
> the kernel buffer being overrun.
>
> I need to run the tests on a system with a 'home built' kernel to see how much
> difference this make (by seeing how much slower duplicating the copy makes it).
> 
> The system call cost of poll() gets factored over a reasonable number of sockets.
> So doing poll() on a socket with no data is a lot faster that the setup for recvmsg
> even allowing for looking up the fd.
> 
> This could be fixed by an extra flag to recvmmsg() to indicate that you only really
> expect one message and to call the poll() function before each subsequent receive.
> 
> There is also the 'reschedule' that Eric added to the loop in recvmmsg.
> I don't know how much that actually costs.
> In this case the process is likely to be running at a RT priority and pinned to a cpu.
> In some cases the cpu is also reserved (at boot time) so that 'random' other code can't use it.
> 
> We really do want to receive all these UDP packets in a timely manner.
> Although very low latency isn't itself an issue.
> The data is telephony audio with (typically) one packet every 20ms.
> The code only looks for packets every 10ms - that helps no end since, in principle,
> only a single poll()/epoll_wait() call (on all the sockets) is needed every 10ms.

I have a simple udp_sink tool[1] that cycle through the different
receive socket system calls.  I gave it a quick spin on a F31 kernel
5.3.12-300.fc31.x86_64 on a mlx5 100G interface, and I'm very surprised
to see a significant regression/slowdown for recvMmsg.

$ sudo ./udp_sink --port 9 --repeat 1 --count $((10**7))
          	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
recvMmsg/32  	run:  0	10000000	1461.41	684270.96	5261	18	 demux:1
recvmsg   	run:  0	10000000	889.82	1123824.84	3203	18	 demux:1
read      	run:  0	10000000	974.81	1025841.68	3509	18	 demux:1
recvfrom  	run:  0	10000000	1056.51	946513.44	3803	18	 demux:1

Normal recvmsg almost have double performance that recvmmsg.
 recvMmsg/32 = 684,270 pps
 recvmsg     = 1,123,824 pps

[1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/src/udp_sink.c
-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

For connected UDP socket:

$ sudo ./udp_sink --port 9 --repeat 1 --connect
          	run      count   	ns/pkt	pps		cycles	payload
recvMmsg/32  	run:  0	 1000000	1240.06	806411.73	4464	18	 demux:1 c:1
recvmsg   	run:  0	 1000000	768.80	1300724.75	2767	18	 demux:1 c:1
read      	run:  0	 1000000	823.40	1214478.40	2964	18	 demux:1 c:1
recvfrom  	run:  0	 1000000	889.19	1124616.11	3201	18	 demux:1 c:1


Found some old results (approx v4.10-rc1):

[brouer@skylake src]$ sudo taskset -c 2 ./udp_sink --count $((10**7)) --port 9 --connect
 recvMmsg/32    run: 0 10000000 537.89  1859106.74      2155    21559353816
 recvmsg        run: 0 10000000 552.69  1809344.44      2215    22152468673
 read           run: 0 10000000 476.65  2097970.76      1910    19104864199
 recvfrom       run: 0 10000000 450.76  2218492.60      1806    18066972794