From: Bartek Kois <bartek.kois@gmail.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] Supermicro AOC-STGN-I1S (Intel 82599EN based 10G adapter) - poor network perfomance after moving to Debian 11.5
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:58:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8da81bdb-80e1-f1b8-1d49-af7cf7072128@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <04793400-b368-ecd8-ce52-009e60533753@molgen.mpg.de>
W dniu 23.01.2023 o 19:53, Paul Menzel pisze:
> Dear Bartek,
>
>
> Am 23.01.23 um 19:38 schrieb Bartek Kois:
>>
>> W dniu 22.01.2023 o 21:28, Paul Menzel pisze:
>>> Dear Bartek,
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 19.01.23 um 18:17 schrieb Bartek Kois:
>>>> W dniu 19.01.2023 o 18:09, Paul Menzel pisze:
>>>
>>>>> Am 19.01.23 um 17:58 schrieb Bartek Kois:
>>>>>> W dniu 19.01.2023 o 13:24, Bartek Kois pisze:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> W dniu 19.01.2023 o 11:17, Paul Menzel pisze:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #regzbot ^introduced: 4.9.88..5.10.149
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 14.01.23 um 11:23 schrieb Bartek Kois:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After moving from Debian 9.7 to 11.5 as soon as I perform "ip
>>>>>>>>> link set enp1s0 up" for my 10G adapter (AOC-STGN-I1S - Intel
>>>>>>>>> 82599EN based 10G adapter) I am experiencing high cpu load
>>>>>>>>> (even if no traffic is passing through the adapter) and
>>>>>>>>> network performance is low (when network is connected).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you test the network performance? Please give exact
>>>>>>>> numbers for comparison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am using this server as a router for my subscribers with
>>>>>>> iptables (for NAT and firewall) and hfsc (for QoS). First I
>>>>>>> encountered this problem while migrating form Debian 9.7 to
>>>>>>> 11.5. Routers based on Supermicro X11SSL-F (Intel® C232
>>>>>>> chipset) works with no problems after that migration, but
>>>>>>> routers based on Supermicro X9SCL (Intel C202 PCH) and
>>>>>>> Supermicro X10SLL+-F (Intel C222 Express PCH) starts behaving
>>>>>>> strangely with high cpu load (0.5-0.8 while before it was around
>>>>>>> 0.0-0.1) and subscribers not being able to utilize their plans.
>>>>>>> I tried to strip down the problem and ends up with clean system
>>>>>>> with no iptables or hfsc rules behaving the same (higher load)
>>>>>>> right after setting the 10G link upeven if no traffic is passing
>>>>>>> by.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cpu load is oscillating between 0.1 and 0.3 on vanilla system
>>>>>>>>> with no network attached. The problem can be observed on the
>>>>>>>>> following platforms: Supermicro X9SCL (Intel C202 PCH) and
>>>>>>>>> Supermicro X10SLL+-F (Intel C222 Express PCH), but for the
>>>>>>>>> Supermicro
>>>>>>>>> X11SSL-F (Intel® C232 chipset) everything is working well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tested environments:
>>>>>>>>> Debian 9.7 - Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1+deb9u1
>>>>>>>>> (2018-05-07) x86_64 GNU/Linux [all platforms working well with
>>>>>>>>> no problems: Supermicro X9SCL (Intel C202 PCH), Supermicro
>>>>>>>>> X10SLL+-F (Intel C222 Express PCH), Supermicro X11SSL-F
>>>>>>>>> (Intel® C232 chipset)]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Debian 11.5 - Linux 5.10.0-19-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.149-2
>>>>>>>>> (2022-10-21) x86_64 GNU/Linux [older platforms: Supermicro
>>>>>>>>> X9SCL (Intel C202 PCH), Supermicro X10SLL+-F (Intel C222
>>>>>>>>> Express PCH) behave problematic as described above | newer
>>>>>>>>> platform: Supermicro X11SSL-F (Intel® C232 chipset) working
>>>>>>>>> well with no problems]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe create a bug at the Linux kernel bug tracker [1], where
>>>>>>>> you can attach all the logs (`dmesg`, `lspci -nnk -s …`, …).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I`ve already reported that to the Debian team
>>>>>>> ttps://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1024763, but so
>>>>>>> far nobody took care of this issue so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far to solve the problem I was trying to upgrade system to
>>>>>>>>> the newest stable version, upgrade kernel to version 6.x,
>>>>>>>>> upgrade ixgbe driver to the newest version but with no luck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for checking that. Too bad it’s still present. To
>>>>>>>> rule out some user space problem, could you test Debian 9.7
>>>>>>>> with a stable Linux release, currently 6.1.7?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does `sudo perf top --sort comm,dso` show, where the time
>>>>>>>> is spent?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During my first test in real enviroment with subscribers I
>>>>>>> gether the following data through the perf:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 27.83% [kernel] [k] strncpy
>>>>>>> 14.80% [kernel] [k] nft_do_chain
>>>>>>> 7.61% [kernel] [k] memcmp
>>>>>>> 5.63% [kernel] [k] nft_meta_get_eval
>>>>>>> 3.14% [kernel] [k] nft_cmp_eval
>>>>>>> 2.79% [kernel] [k] asm_exc_nmi
>>>>>>> 1.07% [kernel] [k] module_get_kallsym
>>>>>>> 0.92% [kernel] [k]
>>>>>>> kallsyms_expand_symbol.constprop.0
>>>>>>> 0.85% [kernel] [k] ixgbe_poll
>>>>>>> 0.75% [kernel] [k] format_decode
>>>>>>> 0.61% [kernel] [k] number
>>>>>>> 0.56% [kernel] [k] menu_select
>>>>>>> 0.54% [kernel] [k] clflush_cache_range
>>>>>>> 0.52% [kernel] [k] cpuidle_enter_state
>>>>>>> 0.51% [kernel] [k] vsnprintf
>>>>>>> 0.50% [kernel] [k] u32_classify
>>>>>>> 0.49% [kernel] [k] fib_table_lookup
>>>>>>> 0.40% [kernel] [k] dma_pte_clear_level
>>>>>>> 0.39% [kernel] [k] domain_mapping
>>>>>>> 0.36% [kernel] [k] ixgbe_xmit_fram
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM
>>>>>>> TIME+ COMMAND
>>>>>>> 18 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 28.2 0.0
>>>>>>> 7:06.27 ksoftirqd/1
>>>>>>> 12 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 12.0 0.0
>>>>>>> 4:10.88 ksoftirqd/0
>>>>>
>>>>> […]
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you see different behavior in `/proc/interrupts`?
>>>>>
>>>> This is how it looks like for Debian 11.5 - Linux 5.10.0-19-amd64
>>>> #1 SMP Debian 5.10.149-2 (2022-10-21) x86_64 GNU/Linux on
>>>> Supermicro X10SLL+-F (Intel C222 Express PCH):
>>>>
>>>> 1 root 20 0 163948 10288 7696 S 0.0 0.1 0:39.58
>>>> systemd
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>>> The content of `/proc/interrupts` has a different format on my system.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> $ head -3 /proc/interrupts
>>> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
>>> 1: 55560 0 113 0 IR-IO-APIC 1-edge
>>> i8042
>>> 8: 0 0 0 0 IR-IO-APIC 8-edge
>>> rtc0
>>> ```
>>> […]
>>>
>>>> and for Debian 9.7 - Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian
>>>> 4.9.88-1+deb9u1 on Supermicro X10SLL+-F (Intel C222 Express PCH)
>>>>
>>>> 31659 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.3 0.0 0:00.92
>>>> kworker/7:0
>>>> 1 root 20 0 57032 6736 5256 S 0.0 0.1 2:28.14
>>>> systemd
>>>
>>> […]
>>>>>>>>> Supermicro support suggested as follows:
>>>>>>>>> it might be kernel related debian 11.5 has kernel 5.10 which
>>>>>>>>> is a recent kernel it might not properly support the chipsets
>>>>>>>>> for X9 therefore i suggest to use RHEL or CentOS as they use
>>>>>>>>> much older kernel versions. I expect that with ubuntu 20.04
>>>>>>>>> you see the same problem it uses kernel 5.4
>>>>>>>> >>> Testing another GNU/Linux distribution for another data
>>>>>>>> point, might be a good idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As nobody has responded yet, bisecting the issue is probably
>>>>>>>> the fastest way to get to the bottom of this. Luckily the
>>>>>>>> problem seems reproducible and you seem to be able to build a
>>>>>>>> Linux kernel yourself, so that should work. (For testing
>>>>>>>> purposes you could also test with Ubuntu, as they provide Linux
>>>>>>>> kernel builds for (almost) all releases in their Linux kernel
>>>>>>>> mainline PPA [2].)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I can try Ubuntu and report how it is working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu (5.15.0-43-generic) seems to be working in the same way
>>>>>> generating higher load after executing "ip link set enp1s0 up".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is good to know. (Is this Ubuntu 22.04?) What about Ubuntu
>>>>> 20.04 with Linux 5.4, and Ubuntu 18.04 with 4.15?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I think, you won’t come around bisecting. Another hint,
>>>>> make sure that you can build a 4.9 Linux kernel yourself, that
>>>>> does not exhibit that issue.
>>>>>
>>>> That`s right, it is 22.04. I don`t have to build it. Standard
>>>> kernel Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64 from Debian 9.7 worked without problems
>>>> for past 4 years.
>>>
>>> If nobody of the developers/maintainers is going to step up, you are
>>> on your own. Again, as you can reproduce this easily, the fastest
>>> way is to bisect the issue, which you can do on your own.
>>
>> How can I investigate that further?
>
> I repeat myself, please bisect the issue. It’s the fastest way.
>
>> I thought about trying to change some of the parameters related to
>> ixgbe driver and observe if anything is changing, but when I am
>> trying to do:
>>
>> sudo modprobe ixgbe IntMode=0
>>
>> I get the following error in the dmesg:
>>
>> [ 2137.324772] ixgbe: unknown parameter 'IntMode' ignored <<<<<<<<<
>
> […]
>
> `modinfo ixgbe` shows the supported parameters.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
> PS: If you need help bisecting, please ask. Otherwise, I am out of
> this thread.
Ok, how exactly I can bisect this issue?
Best regards
Bartek Kois
>
>>>>>>>> [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/
>>>>>>>> [2]: https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-23 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-14 10:23 [Intel-wired-lan] Supermicro AOC-STGN-I1S (Intel 82599EN based 10G adapter) - poor network perfomance after moving to Debian 11.5 Bartek Kois
2023-01-19 9:59 ` Bartek Kois
2023-01-19 10:17 ` Paul Menzel
2023-01-19 10:22 ` [Intel-wired-lan] Supermicro AOC-STGN-I1S (Intel 82599EN based 10G adapter) - poor network performance " Paul Menzel
2023-01-19 12:24 ` [Intel-wired-lan] Supermicro AOC-STGN-I1S (Intel 82599EN based 10G adapter) - poor network perfomance " Bartek Kois
2023-01-19 16:58 ` Bartek Kois
2023-01-19 17:09 ` Paul Menzel
2023-01-19 17:17 ` Bartek Kois
2023-01-22 20:28 ` Paul Menzel
2023-01-23 18:38 ` Bartek Kois
2023-01-23 18:53 ` Paul Menzel
2023-01-23 18:58 ` Bartek Kois [this message]
2023-01-23 19:03 ` Paul Menzel
2023-01-24 9:33 ` Linux kernel regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2023-01-24 9:40 ` Bartek Kois
2023-03-23 13:46 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-01-04 8:39 Bartek Kois
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=8da81bdb-80e1-f1b8-1d49-af7cf7072128@gmail.com \
--to=bartek.kois@gmail.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=regressions@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).