From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:28:34 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <53215E22.8020207@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140310080310.GA754@redhat.com> 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@redhat.com> >> > Cc: Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > 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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Cc: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:28:34 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <53215E22.8020207@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140310080310.GA754@redhat.com> 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@redhat.com> >> > Cc: Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-13 7:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-03-07 5:28 [PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit Jason Wang 2014-03-07 5:28 ` Jason Wang 2014-03-07 21:39 ` David Miller 2014-03-07 21:39 ` David Miller 2014-03-10 5:15 ` Jason Wang 2014-03-10 5:15 ` Jason Wang 2014-03-10 2:52 ` Qin Chuanyu 2014-03-10 2:52 ` Qin Chuanyu 2014-03-10 8:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2014-03-10 8:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2014-03-13 7:28 ` Jason Wang [this message] 2014-03-13 7:28 ` Jason Wang 2014-03-17 6:43 ` Ronen Hod 2014-03-17 6:43 ` Ronen Hod 2014-03-17 17:20 ` Yan Vugenfirer 2014-03-17 17:21 ` Yan Vugenfirer 2014-03-17 17:21 ` Yan Vugenfirer
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=53215E22.8020207@redhat.com \ --to=jasowang@redhat.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mst@redhat.com \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=qinchuanyu@huawei.com \ --cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \ --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.