All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com>
Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org,
	padraig.j.connolly@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	helin.zhang@intel.com,
	Padraig Connolly <Padraig.J.Connolly@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] kni: allow configuring the kni thread granularity
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 20:30:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4468595.CvnuH1ECHv@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220120124134.4123542-1-tudor.cornea@gmail.com>

20/01/2022 13:41, Tudor Cornea:
> The Kni kthreads seem to be re-scheduled at a granularity of roughly
> 1 millisecond right now, which seems to be insufficient for performing
> tests involving a lot of control plane traffic.
> 
> Even if KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL is set to 5 microseconds, it
> seems that the existing code cannot reschedule at the desired granularily,
> due to precision constraints of schedule_timeout_interruptible().
> 
> In our use case, we leverage the Linux Kernel for control plane, and
> it is not uncommon to have 60K - 100K pps for some signaling protocols.
> 
> Since we are not in atomic context, the usleep_range() function seems to be
> more appropriate for being able to introduce smaller controlled delays,
> in the range of 5-10 microseconds. Upon reading the existing code, it would
> seem that this was the original intent. Adding sub-millisecond delays,
> seems unfeasible with a call to schedule_timeout_interruptible().
> 
> KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL 5 /* us */
> schedule_timeout_interruptible(
>         usecs_to_jiffies(KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL));
> 
> Below, we attempted a brief comparison between the existing implementation,
> which uses schedule_timeout_interruptible() and usleep_range().
> 
> We attempt to measure the CPU usage, and RTT between two Kni interfaces,
> which are created on top of vmxnet3 adapters, connected by a vSwitch.
> 
> insmod rte_kni.ko kthread_mode=single carrier=on
> 
> schedule_timeout_interruptible(usecs_to_jiffies(5))
> kni_single CPU Usage: 2-4 %
> [root@localhost ~]# ping 1.1.1.2 -I eth1
> PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) from 1.1.1.1 eth1: 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.70 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.00 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.99 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.985 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.00 ms
> 
> usleep_range(5, 10)
> kni_single CPU usage: 50%
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.338 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.150 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.123 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.139 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.159 ms
> 
> usleep_range(20, 50)
> kni_single CPU usage: 24%
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.202 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.170 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.248 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.185 ms
> 
> usleep_range(50, 100)
> kni_single CPU usage: 13%
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.537 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.257 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.231 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.143 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.200 ms
> 
> usleep_range(100, 200)
> kni_single CPU usage: 7%
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.716 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.167 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.459 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.455 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.252 ms
> 
> usleep_range(1000, 1100)
> kni_single CPU usage: 2%
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.22 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.17 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.17 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.17 ms
> 64 bytes from 1.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.15 ms
> 
> Upon testing, usleep_range(1000, 1100) seems roughly equivalent in
> latency and cpu usage to the variant with schedule_timeout_interruptible(),
> while usleep_range(100, 200) seems to give a decent tradeoff between
> latency and cpu usage, while allowing users to tweak the limits for
> improved precision if they have such use cases.
> 
> Disabling RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT, interestingly seems to lead to a
> softlockup on my kernel.
> 
> Kernel panic - not syncing: softlockup: hung tasks
> CPU: 0 PID: 1226 Comm: kni_single Tainted: G        W  O 3.10 #1
>  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff814f84de>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>  [<ffffffff814f7891>] panic+0xcd/0x1e0
>  [<ffffffff810993b0>] watchdog_timer_fn+0x160/0x160
>  [<ffffffff810644b2>] __run_hrtimer.isra.4+0x42/0xd0
>  [<ffffffff81064b57>] hrtimer_interrupt+0xe7/0x1f0
>  [<ffffffff8102cd57>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x67/0xa0
>  [<ffffffff8150321d>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
> 
> This patch also attempts to remove this option.
> 
> References:
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Padraig Connolly <Padraig.J.Connolly@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> ---
> v6:
> * Removed tabs and newline in the description of the
> 
>   min_scheduling_interval and max_scheduling_interval
>   parameters. They seem to be non-standard.

The doc had to be updated a bit as well.

Fixed Kni -> KNI and applied, thanks.



      reply	other threads:[~2022-02-02 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-02 10:38 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: allow configuring the kni thread granularity Tudor Cornea
2021-11-02 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Tudor Cornea
2021-11-02 15:53   ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-11-03 20:40     ` Tudor Cornea
2021-11-03 22:18       ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-11-08 10:13   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Tudor Cornea
2021-11-22 17:31     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-11-23 17:08       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-11-24 17:10         ` Tudor Cornea
2021-11-24 19:24     ` [PATCH v4] " Tudor Cornea
2022-01-14 13:53       ` Connolly, Padraig J
2022-01-14 14:13       ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-01-14 15:18       ` [PATCH v5] " Tudor Cornea
2022-01-14 16:24         ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-01-14 16:43           ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-01-17 16:24             ` Tudor Cornea
2022-01-20 12:41         ` [PATCH v6] " Tudor Cornea
2022-02-02 19:30           ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]

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=4468595.CvnuH1ECHv@thomas \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=padraig.j.connolly@intel.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=tudor.cornea@gmail.com \
    /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: link
Be 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.