* Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: lower min ring num_free for efficiency
[not found] ` <BYAPR14MB320512CCA27487548DDAA57FA6AC0@BYAPR14MB3205.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
@ 2019-08-15 9:22 ` Jason Wang
2019-08-15 9:25 ` Jason Wang
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-08-15 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 冉 jiang, mst
Cc: davem, ast, daniel, jakub.kicinski, hawk, john.fastabend, kafai,
songliubraving, yhs, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
xdp-newbies, bpf, jiangran.jr
On 2019/8/15 下午4:36, 冉 jiang wrote:
> On 2019/8/15 11:17, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/8/15 上午11:11, 冉 jiang wrote:
>>> On 2019/8/15 11:01, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/8/14 上午10:06, ? jiang wrote:
>>>>> This change lowers ring buffer reclaim threshold from 1/2*queue to
>>>>> budget
>>>>> for better performance. According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet
>>>>> dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in
>>>>> avail ring timely with default 1/2*queue. The value in the patch has
>>>>> been
>>>>> tested and does show better performance.
>>>> Please add your tests setup and result here.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd@hotmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> index 0d4115c9e20b..bc08be7925eb 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue
>>>>> *rq, int budget,
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (rq->vq->num_free > virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq) / 2) {
>>>>> + if (rq->vq->num_free > min((unsigned int)budget,
>>>>> virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq)) / 2) {
>>>>> if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC))
>>>>> schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
>>>>> }
>>> Sure, here are the details:
>>
>> Thanks for the details, but I meant it's better if you could summarize
>> you test result in the commit log in a compact way.
>>
>> Btw, some comments, see below:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Test setup & result:
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Below is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
>>> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch. We
>>> can see average
>>> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2.
>>>
>>> test1Time avgDropPackets test2Time avgDropPackets pps
>>>
>>> 16:21.0 12.295 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 17:19.1 15.244 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 18:17.5 18.789 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 19:15.1 14.208 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 20:13.2 20.818 56:50.4 0.267 300k
>>> 21:11.2 12.397 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 22:09.3 12.599 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 23:07.3 15.531 57:48.4 0 300k
>>> 24:05.5 13.664 58:46.5 0 300k
>>> 25:03.7 13.158 59:44.5 4.73 300k
>>> 26:01.1 2.486 00:42.6 0 300k
>>> 26:59.1 11.241 01:40.6 0 300k
>>> 27:57.2 20.521 02:38.6 0 300k
>>> 28:55.2 30.094 03:36.7 0 300k
>>> 29:53.3 16.828 04:34.7 0.963 300k
>>> 30:51.3 46.916 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 31:49.3 56.214 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 32:47.3 58.69 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 33:45.3 61.486 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 34:43.3 72.175 05:32.8 0.598 400k
>>> 35:41.3 56.699 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 36:39.3 61.071 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 37:37.3 43.355 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 38:35.4 44.644 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 39:33.4 72.336 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 40:31.4 70.676 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 41:29.4 108.009 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 42:27.4 65.216 06:30.8 0 400k
>>
>> Why there're difference in test time? Could you summarize them like:
>>
>> Test setup: e.g testpmd or pktgen to generate packets to guest
>>
>> avg packets drop before: XXX
>>
>> avg packets drop after: YYY(-ZZZ%)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Data to prove why the patch helps:
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> We did have completed several rounds of test with setting the value to
>>> budget (64 as the default value). It does improve a lot with pps is
>>> below 400pps for a single stream. We are confident that it runs out
>>> of free
>>> buffer in avail ring when packet dropping happens with below systemtap:
>>>
>>> Just a snippet:
>>>
>>> probe module("virtio_ring").function("virtqueue_get_buf")
>>> {
>>> x = (@cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->used->idx)-
>>> (@cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->last_used_idx) ---> we use this one
>>> to verify if the queue is full, which means guest is not able to take
>>> buffer from the queue timely
>>>
>>> if (x<0 && (x+65535)<4096)
>>> x = x+65535
>>>
>>> if((x==1024) && @cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vq->callback ==
>>> callback_addr)
>>> netrxcount[x] <<< gettimeofday_s()
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> probe module("virtio_ring").function("virtqueue_add_inbuf")
>>> {
>>> y = (@cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->avail->idx)-
>>> (@cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->used->idx) ---> we use this one
>>> to verify if we run out of free buffer in avail ring
>>> if (y<0 && (y+65535)<4096)
>>> y = y+65535
>>>
>>> if(@2=="debugon")
>>> {
>>> if(y==0 && @cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vq->callback ==
>>> callback_addr)
>>> {
>>> netrxfreecount[y] <<< gettimeofday_s()
>>>
>>> printf("no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5
>>> num free, vq: %lx, current index: %d\n", $vq, recentfreecount)
>>> for(i=recentfreecount; i!=((recentfreecount+4) % 5);
>>> i=((i+1) % 5))
>>> {
>>> printf("index: %d, num free: %d\n", i,
>>> recentfree[$vq,
>>> i])
>>> }
>>>
>>> printf("index: %d, num free: %d\n", i, recentfree[$vq,
>>> i])
>>> //exit()
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> probe
>>> module("virtio_net").statement("virtnet_receive@drivers/net/virtio_net.c:732")
>>>
>>>
>>> {
>>> recentfreecount++
>>> recentfreecount = recentfreecount % 5
>>> recentfree[$rq->vq, recentfreecount] = $rq->vq->num_free --->
>>> record the num_free for the last 5 calls to virtnet_receive, so we can
>>> see if lowering the bar helps.
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the result:
>>>
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 1
>>> index: 1, num free: 561
>>> index: 2, num free: 305
>>> index: 3, num free: 369
>>> index: 4, num free: 433
>>> index: 0, num free: 497
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 1
>>> index: 1, num free: 543
>>> index: 2, num free: 463
>>> index: 3, num free: 469
>>> index: 4, num free: 476
>>> index: 0, num free: 479
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 2
>>> index: 2, num free: 555
>>> index: 3, num free: 414
>>> index: 4, num free: 420
>>> index: 0, num free: 427
>>> index: 1, num free: 491
>>>
>>> We can see in the last 4 calls to virtnet_receive before we run out
>>> of free buffer and start to relaim, num_free is quite high. So if we
>>> can do the reclaim earlier, it will certainly help.
>>>
>>> Jiang
>>
>> Right, but I think there's no need to put those thing in the commit log.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
> Sure, here is the info:
>
>
> Test setup: iperf3 to generate packets to guest (total 30mins, pps 400k)
>
> avg packets drop before: 2842
>
> avg packets drop after: 360(-87.3%)
>
>
> Just let me know if it looks good enough. Thx.
>
> Jiang
Looks good, please post a V2 and include the above result in the commit log.
Thanks
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: lower min ring num_free for efficiency
[not found] ` <BYAPR14MB320512CCA27487548DDAA57FA6AC0@BYAPR14MB3205.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
2019-08-15 9:22 ` Jason Wang
@ 2019-08-15 9:25 ` Jason Wang
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-08-15 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 冉 jiang, mst
Cc: davem, ast, daniel, jakub.kicinski, hawk, john.fastabend, kafai,
songliubraving, yhs, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
xdp-newbies, bpf, jiangran.jr
On 2019/8/15 下午4:36, 冉 jiang wrote:
> On 2019/8/15 11:17, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/8/15 上午11:11, 冉 jiang wrote:
>>> On 2019/8/15 11:01, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/8/14 上午10:06, ? jiang wrote:
>>>>> This change lowers ring buffer reclaim threshold from 1/2*queue to
>>>>> budget
>>>>> for better performance. According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet
>>>>> dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in
>>>>> avail ring timely with default 1/2*queue. The value in the patch has
>>>>> been
>>>>> tested and does show better performance.
>>>> Please add your tests setup and result here.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd@hotmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> index 0d4115c9e20b..bc08be7925eb 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue
>>>>> *rq, int budget,
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (rq->vq->num_free > virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq) / 2) {
>>>>> + if (rq->vq->num_free > min((unsigned int)budget,
>>>>> virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq)) / 2) {
>>>>> if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC))
>>>>> schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
>>>>> }
>>> Sure, here are the details:
>>
>> Thanks for the details, but I meant it's better if you could summarize
>> you test result in the commit log in a compact way.
>>
>> Btw, some comments, see below:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Test setup & result:
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Below is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
>>> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch. We
>>> can see average
>>> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2.
>>>
>>> test1Time avgDropPackets test2Time avgDropPackets pps
>>>
>>> 16:21.0 12.295 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 17:19.1 15.244 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 18:17.5 18.789 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 19:15.1 14.208 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 20:13.2 20.818 56:50.4 0.267 300k
>>> 21:11.2 12.397 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 22:09.3 12.599 56:50.4 0 300k
>>> 23:07.3 15.531 57:48.4 0 300k
>>> 24:05.5 13.664 58:46.5 0 300k
>>> 25:03.7 13.158 59:44.5 4.73 300k
>>> 26:01.1 2.486 00:42.6 0 300k
>>> 26:59.1 11.241 01:40.6 0 300k
>>> 27:57.2 20.521 02:38.6 0 300k
>>> 28:55.2 30.094 03:36.7 0 300k
>>> 29:53.3 16.828 04:34.7 0.963 300k
>>> 30:51.3 46.916 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 31:49.3 56.214 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 32:47.3 58.69 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 33:45.3 61.486 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 34:43.3 72.175 05:32.8 0.598 400k
>>> 35:41.3 56.699 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 36:39.3 61.071 05:32.8 0 400k
>>> 37:37.3 43.355 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 38:35.4 44.644 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 39:33.4 72.336 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 40:31.4 70.676 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 41:29.4 108.009 06:30.8 0 400k
>>> 42:27.4 65.216 06:30.8 0 400k
>>
>> Why there're difference in test time? Could you summarize them like:
>>
>> Test setup: e.g testpmd or pktgen to generate packets to guest
>>
>> avg packets drop before: XXX
>>
>> avg packets drop after: YYY(-ZZZ%)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Data to prove why the patch helps:
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> We did have completed several rounds of test with setting the value to
>>> budget (64 as the default value). It does improve a lot with pps is
>>> below 400pps for a single stream. We are confident that it runs out
>>> of free
>>> buffer in avail ring when packet dropping happens with below systemtap:
>>>
>>> Just a snippet:
>>>
>>> probe module("virtio_ring").function("virtqueue_get_buf")
>>> {
>>> x = (@cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->used->idx)-
>>> (@cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->last_used_idx) ---> we use this one
>>> to verify if the queue is full, which means guest is not able to take
>>> buffer from the queue timely
>>>
>>> if (x<0 && (x+65535)<4096)
>>> x = x+65535
>>>
>>> if((x==1024) && @cast($_vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vq->callback ==
>>> callback_addr)
>>> netrxcount[x] <<< gettimeofday_s()
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> probe module("virtio_ring").function("virtqueue_add_inbuf")
>>> {
>>> y = (@cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->avail->idx)-
>>> (@cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vring->used->idx) ---> we use this one
>>> to verify if we run out of free buffer in avail ring
>>> if (y<0 && (y+65535)<4096)
>>> y = y+65535
>>>
>>> if(@2=="debugon")
>>> {
>>> if(y==0 && @cast($vq, "vring_virtqueue")->vq->callback ==
>>> callback_addr)
>>> {
>>> netrxfreecount[y] <<< gettimeofday_s()
>>>
>>> printf("no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5
>>> num free, vq: %lx, current index: %d\n", $vq, recentfreecount)
>>> for(i=recentfreecount; i!=((recentfreecount+4) % 5);
>>> i=((i+1) % 5))
>>> {
>>> printf("index: %d, num free: %d\n", i,
>>> recentfree[$vq,
>>> i])
>>> }
>>>
>>> printf("index: %d, num free: %d\n", i, recentfree[$vq,
>>> i])
>>> //exit()
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> probe
>>> module("virtio_net").statement("virtnet_receive@drivers/net/virtio_net.c:732")
>>>
>>>
>>> {
>>> recentfreecount++
>>> recentfreecount = recentfreecount % 5
>>> recentfree[$rq->vq, recentfreecount] = $rq->vq->num_free --->
>>> record the num_free for the last 5 calls to virtnet_receive, so we can
>>> see if lowering the bar helps.
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the result:
>>>
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 1
>>> index: 1, num free: 561
>>> index: 2, num free: 305
>>> index: 3, num free: 369
>>> index: 4, num free: 433
>>> index: 0, num free: 497
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 1
>>> index: 1, num free: 543
>>> index: 2, num free: 463
>>> index: 3, num free: 469
>>> index: 4, num free: 476
>>> index: 0, num free: 479
>>> no avail ring left seen, printing most recent 5 num free, vq:
>>> ffff9c13c1200000, current index: 2
>>> index: 2, num free: 555
>>> index: 3, num free: 414
>>> index: 4, num free: 420
>>> index: 0, num free: 427
>>> index: 1, num free: 491
>>>
>>> We can see in the last 4 calls to virtnet_receive before we run out
>>> of free buffer and start to relaim, num_free is quite high. So if we
>>> can do the reclaim earlier, it will certainly help.
>>>
>>> Jiang
>>
>> Right, but I think there's no need to put those thing in the commit log.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
> Sure, here is the info:
>
>
> Test setup: iperf3 to generate packets to guest (total 30mins, pps 400k)
Please also note that type of packets e.g TCP or UDP.
Thanks
>
> avg packets drop before: 2842
>
> avg packets drop after: 360(-87.3%)
>
>
> Just let me know if it looks good enough. Thx.
>
> Jiang
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread