All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Davies <Jonathan.Davies@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Paul Durrant" <paul.durrant@citrix.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
	Felipe Franciosi <felipe.franciosi@citrix.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:01:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552F7EF4.9030107@iogearbox.net>

On 04/16/2015 10:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> So mid term, it would be much more beneficial if you attempt fix the
> underlying driver issues that actually cause high tx completion delays,
> instead of reintroducing bufferbloat. So that we all can move forward
> and not backwards in time.

Yes, I think we definitely see the need for this.  I think we certainly
agree that bufferbloat needs to be reduced, and minimizing the data we
need "in the pipe" for full performance on xennet is an important part
of that.

It should be said, however, that any virtual device is always going to
have higher latency than a physical device.  Hopefully we'll be able to
get the latency of xennet down to something that's more "reasonable",
but it may just not be possible.  And in any case, if we're going to be
cranking down these limits to just barely within the tolerance of
physical NICs, virtual devices (either xennet or virtio_net) are never
going to be able to catch up.  (Without cheating that is.)

> What Eric described to you was that you introduce a new netdev member
> like netdev->needs_bufferbloat, set that indication from driver site,
> and cache that in the socket that binds to it, so you can adjust the
> test in tcp_xmit_size_goal(). It should merely be seen as a hint/indication
> for such devices. Hmm?

He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
of us guessed what he was trying to get at.  That's what I was
complaining about.

Having a per-device "long transmit latency" hint sounds like a sensible
short-term solution to me.

 -George

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com (George Dunlap)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:01:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552F7EF4.9030107@iogearbox.net>

On 04/16/2015 10:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> So mid term, it would be much more beneficial if you attempt fix the
> underlying driver issues that actually cause high tx completion delays,
> instead of reintroducing bufferbloat. So that we all can move forward
> and not backwards in time.

Yes, I think we definitely see the need for this.  I think we certainly
agree that bufferbloat needs to be reduced, and minimizing the data we
need "in the pipe" for full performance on xennet is an important part
of that.

It should be said, however, that any virtual device is always going to
have higher latency than a physical device.  Hopefully we'll be able to
get the latency of xennet down to something that's more "reasonable",
but it may just not be possible.  And in any case, if we're going to be
cranking down these limits to just barely within the tolerance of
physical NICs, virtual devices (either xennet or virtio_net) are never
going to be able to catch up.  (Without cheating that is.)

> What Eric described to you was that you introduce a new netdev member
> like netdev->needs_bufferbloat, set that indication from driver site,
> and cache that in the socket that binds to it, so you can adjust the
> test in tcp_xmit_size_goal(). It should merely be seen as a hint/indication
> for such devices. Hmm?

He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
of us guessed what he was trying to get at.  That's what I was
complaining about.

Having a per-device "long transmit latency" hint sounds like a sensible
short-term solution to me.

 -George

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Davies <Jonathan.Davies@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
	Felipe Franciosi <felipe.franciosi@citrix.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:01:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552F7EF4.9030107@iogearbox.net>

On 04/16/2015 10:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> So mid term, it would be much more beneficial if you attempt fix the
> underlying driver issues that actually cause high tx completion delays,
> instead of reintroducing bufferbloat. So that we all can move forward
> and not backwards in time.

Yes, I think we definitely see the need for this.  I think we certainly
agree that bufferbloat needs to be reduced, and minimizing the data we
need "in the pipe" for full performance on xennet is an important part
of that.

It should be said, however, that any virtual device is always going to
have higher latency than a physical device.  Hopefully we'll be able to
get the latency of xennet down to something that's more "reasonable",
but it may just not be possible.  And in any case, if we're going to be
cranking down these limits to just barely within the tolerance of
physical NICs, virtual devices (either xennet or virtio_net) are never
going to be able to catch up.  (Without cheating that is.)

> What Eric described to you was that you introduce a new netdev member
> like netdev->needs_bufferbloat, set that indication from driver site,
> and cache that in the socket that binds to it, so you can adjust the
> test in tcp_xmit_size_goal(). It should merely be seen as a hint/indication
> for such devices. Hmm?

He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
of us guessed what he was trying to get at.  That's what I was
complaining about.

Having a per-device "long transmit latency" hint sounds like a sensible
short-term solution to me.

 -George

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-16 10:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-09 15:46 "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 15:46 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 15:46 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-09 16:16   ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-09 16:36   ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 16:36     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 16:36     ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 17:07     ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-09 17:07       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-13 10:56     ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2015-04-13 10:56       ` George Dunlap
2015-04-13 13:38       ` Jonathan Davies
2015-04-13 13:38         ` Jonathan Davies
2015-04-13 13:38         ` Jonathan Davies
2015-04-13 13:49       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-13 13:49         ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 13:43         ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 13:43           ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 16:38           ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 16:38             ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 16:38             ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:23             ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:23               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:23               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:29               ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:29                 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:41                 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:41                   ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:41                   ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:52                   ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:52                     ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:55                     ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 17:55                       ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:08                       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:08                         ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:19                         ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:19                           ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:32                           ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:32                             ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:32                             ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 20:08                             ` [Xen-devel] " Rick Jones
2015-04-15 20:08                               ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 20:08                               ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:04                     ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 18:04                       ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 18:04                       ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 18:19                       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:19                         ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16  8:56                         ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16  8:56                           ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16  8:56                           ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16  9:20                           ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-04-16  9:20                             ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-04-16  9:20                             ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-04-16 10:01                             ` George Dunlap [this message]
2015-04-16 10:01                               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 10:01                               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 12:42                               ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 12:42                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-20 11:03                                 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-20 11:03                                   ` George Dunlap
2015-06-02  9:52                                 ` Wei Liu
2015-06-02  9:52                                   ` Wei Liu
2015-06-02  9:52                                   ` Wei Liu
2015-06-02 16:16                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2015-06-02 16:16                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16  9:22                           ` David Laight
2015-04-16  9:22                             ` David Laight
2015-04-16  9:22                             ` David Laight
2015-04-16 10:57                             ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 10:57                               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 10:57                               ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:41               ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:41                 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:58                 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-15 17:58                   ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-15 17:58                   ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-15 18:17                   ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:17                     ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16  4:20                     ` Herbert Xu
2015-04-16  4:20                       ` Herbert Xu
2015-04-16  4:30                       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16  4:30                         ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 11:39                     ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 11:39                       ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 11:39                       ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 12:16                       ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 12:16                         ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 13:00                       ` Tim Deegan
2015-04-16 13:00                         ` Tim Deegan
2015-04-16 13:00                         ` Tim Deegan

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=552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com \
    --to=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=Jonathan.Davies@citrix.com \
    --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=felipe.franciosi@citrix.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul.durrant@citrix.com \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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.