Re: [PATCH RFC v7 03/14] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Tue Jun 16 2020 - 18:08:19 EST

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:23:43PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:05 PM Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 07:30 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 06:18:32PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:13 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:37:50PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > > > > > +/* This function returns a value > 0 if a descriptor was found, or 0 if none were found.
> > > > > > > + * A negative code is returned on error. */
> > > > > > > +static int fetch_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (unlikely(vq->first_desc >= vq->ndescs)) {
> > > > > > > + vq->first_desc = 0;
> > > > > > > + vq->ndescs = 0;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (vq->ndescs)
> > > > > > > + return 1;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + for (ret = 1;
> > > > > > > + ret > 0 && vq->ndescs <= vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq);
> > > > > > > + ret = fetch_buf(vq))
> > > > > > > + ;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Expanding comment in V6):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We get an infinite loop this way:
> > > > > > * vq->ndescs == 0, so we call fetch_buf() here
> > > > > > * fetch_buf gets less than vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq); descriptors. ret = 1
> > > > > > * This loop calls again fetch_buf, but vq->ndescs > 0 (and avail_vq ==
> > > > > > last_avail_vq), so it just return 1
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what
> > > > > [PATCH RFC v7 08/14] fixup! vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version
> > > > > is supposed to fix.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I forgot to include that fixup.
> > > >
> > > > With it I don't see CPU stalls, but with that version latency has
> > > > increased a lot and I see packet lost:
> > > > + ping -c 5 10.200.0.1
> > > > PING 10.200.0.1 (10.200.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > > > > From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
> > > > > From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
> > > > > From 10.200.0.2 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=6848 ms
> > > >
> > > > --- 10.200.0.1 ping statistics ---
> > > > 5 packets transmitted, 1 received, +3 errors, 80% packet loss, time 76ms
> > > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6848.316/6848.316/6848.316/0.000 ms, pipe 4
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > I cannot even use netperf.
> > >
> > > OK so that's the bug to try to find and fix I think.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If I modify with my proposed version:
> > > > + ping -c 5 10.200.0.1
> > > > PING 10.200.0.1 (10.200.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=7.07 ms
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.358 ms
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=5.35 ms
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.27 ms
> > > > 64 bytes from 10.200.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.426 ms
> > >
> > > Not sure which version this is.
> > >
> > > > [root@localhost ~]# netperf -H 10.200.0.1 -p 12865 -l 10 -t TCP_STREAM
> > > > MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> > > > 10.200.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> > > > Recv Send Send
> > > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> > > > Size Size Size Time Throughput
> > > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
> > > >
> > > > 131072 16384 16384 10.01 4742.36
> > > > [root@localhost ~]# netperf -H 10.200.0.1 -p 12865 -l 10 -t UDP_STREAM
> > > > MIGRATED UDP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> > > > 10.200.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> > > > Socket Message Elapsed Messages
> > > > Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput
> > > > bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec
> > > >
> > > > 212992 65507 10.00 9214 0 482.83
> > > > 212992 10.00 9214 482.83
> > > >
> > > > I will compare with the non-batch version for reference, but the
> > > > difference between the two is noticeable. Maybe it's worth finding a
> > > > good value for the if() inside fetch_buf?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think it's performance, I think it's a bug somewhere,
> > > e.g. maybe we corrupt a packet, or stall the queue, or
> > > something like this.
> > >
> > > Let's do this, I will squash the fixups and post v8 so you can bisect
> > > and then debug cleanly.
> >
> > Ok, so if we apply the patch proposed in v7 08/14 (Or the version 8 of the patchset sent), this is what happens:
> >
> > 1. Userland (virtio_test in my case) introduces just one buffer in vq, and it kicks
> > 2. vhost module reaches fetch_descs, called from vhost_get_vq_desc. From there we call fetch_buf in a for loop.
> > 3. The first time we call fetch_buf, it returns properly one buffer. However, the second time we call it, it returns 0
> > because vq->avail_idx == vq->last_avail_idx and vq->avail_idx == last_avail_idx code path.
> > 4. fetch_descs assign ret = 0, so it returns 0. vhost_get_vq_desc will goto err, and it will signal no new buffer
> > (returning vq->num).
> >
> > So to fix it and maintain the batching maybe we could return vq->ndescs in case ret == 0:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > index c0dfb5e3d2af..5993d4f34ca9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > @@ -2315,7 +2327,8 @@ static int fetch_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> >
> > /* On success we expect some descs */
> > BUG_ON(ret > 0 && !vq->ndescs);
> > - return ret;
> > + return ret ?: vq->ndescs;


I'd rather we used standard C. Also ret < 0 needs
to be handled. Also - what if fetch of some descs fails
but some succeeds?
What do we want to do?
Maybe:

return vq->ndescs ? vq->ndescs : ret;


> > }
> >
> > /* Reverse the effects of fetch_descs */
> > --
> >
> > Another possibility could be to return different codes from fetch_buf, but I find the suggested modification easier.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> Hi!
>
> I can send a proposed RFC v9 in case it is more convenient for you.
>
> Thanks!

Excellent, pls go ahead!
And can you include the performance numbers?
It's enough to test the final version.

--
MST