Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

[Eugenio Perez Martin]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:43:09PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:15 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:29 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > > > > > > <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > > > > > > > <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Konrad.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tested this version of the patch:
> > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in
> > > > > > > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html)
> > > > > > > > and kernel pktgen. No latency tests were performed by me. Maybe it is
> > > > > > > > interesting to perform a latency test or just a different set of tests
> > > > > > > > over a recent version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have repeated the tests with v9, and results are a little bit different:
> > > > > > > * If I test opening it with testpmd, I see no change between versions
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK that is testpmd on guest, right? And vhost-net on the host?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, sorry, as described in
> > > > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html.
> > > > > But I could add to test it in the guest too.
> > > > >
> > > > > These kinds of raw packets "bursts" do not show performance
> > > > > differences, but I could test deeper if you think it would be worth
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Oh ok, so this is without guest, with virtio-user.
> > > > It might be worth checking dpdk within guest too just
> > > > as another data point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, I will do it!
> > >
> > > > > > > * If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest
> > > > > > > using a linux bridge in the host:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And here I guess you mean virtio-net in the guest kernel?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, sorry: Two virtio-net interfaces connected with a linux bridge in
> > > > > the host. More precisely:
> > > > > * Adding one of the interfaces to another namespace, assigning it an
> > > > > IP, and starting netserver there.
> > > > > * Assign another IP in the range manually to the other virtual net
> > > > > interface, and start the desired test there.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think it would be better to perform then differently please let me know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why you bother with namespaces since you said you are
> > > > using L2 bridging. I guess it's unimportant.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I think I should have provided more context about that.
> > >
> > > The only reason to use namespaces is to force the traffic of these
> > > netperf tests to go through the external bridge. To test netperf
> > > different possibilities than the testpmd (or pktgen or others "blast
> > > of frames unconditionally" tests).
> > >
> > > This way, I make sure that is the same version of everything in the
> > > guest, and is a little bit easier to manage cpu affinity, start and
> > > stop testing...
> > >
> > > I could use a different VM for sending and receiving, but I find this
> > > way a faster one and it should not introduce a lot of noise. I can
> > > test with two VM if you think that this use of network namespace
> > > introduces too much noise.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   - netperf UDP_STREAM shows a performance increase of 1.8, almost
> > > > > > > doubling performance. This gets lower as frame size increase.
> >
> > Regarding UDP_STREAM:
> > * with event_idx=on: The performance difference is reduced a lot if
> > applied affinity properly (manually assigning CPU on host/guest and
> > setting IRQs on guest), making them perform equally with and without
> > the patch again. Maybe the batching makes the scheduler perform
> > better.
> >
> > > > > > >   - rests of the test goes noticeably worse: UDP_RR goes from ~6347
> > > > > > > transactions/sec to 5830
> >
> > * Regarding UDP_RR, TCP_STREAM, and TCP_RR, proper CPU pinning makes
> > them perform similarly again, only a very small performance drop
> > observed. It could be just noise.
> > ** All of them perform better than vanilla if event_idx=off, not sure
> > why. I can try to repeat them if you suspect that can be a test
> > failure.
> >
> > * With testpmd and event_idx=off, if I send from the VM to host, I see
> > a performance increment especially in small packets. The buf api also
> > increases performance compared with only batching: Sending the minimum
> > packet size in testpmd makes pps go from 356kpps to 473 kpps. Sending
> > 1024 length UDP-PDU makes it go from 570kpps to 64 kpps.
> >
> > Something strange I observe in these tests: I get more pps the bigger
> > the transmitted buffer size is. Not sure why.
> >
> > ** Sending from the host to the VM does not make a big change with the
> > patches in small packets scenario (minimum, 64 bytes, about 645
> > without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets
> > are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, it goes
> > from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it
> > gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement.
> >
> > * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in
> > both directions.
> >
> > All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a
> > host's tap interface (<interface type='ethernet'> in xml), with a
> > testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the
> > receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts,
> > and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to
> > schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors.
> >
> > I will send the v10 RFC with the small changes requested by Stefan and Jason.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> OK so there's a chance you are seeing effects of an aggressive power
> management. which tuned profile are you using? It might be helpful
> to disable PM/frequency scaling.
>

I didn't change the tuned profile.

I set all cpus involved in the test isolated with cmdline:
'isolcpus=1,3,5,7,9,11 nohz_full=1,3,5,7,9,11 rcu_nocbs=1,3,5,7,9,11
rcu_nocb_poll intel_pstate=disable'

Wil try to change them though tuned, thanks!

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK so it seems plausible that we still have a bug where an interrupt
> > > > > > is delayed. That is the main difference between pmd and virtio.
> > > > > > Let's try disabling event index, and see what happens - that's
> > > > > > the trickiest part of interrupts.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Got it, will get back with the results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you very much!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   - TCP_STREAM goes from ~10.7 gbps to ~7Gbps
> > > > > > >   - TCP_RR from 6223.64 transactions/sec to 5739.44
> > > > > >
> > > >
>