Linux-RDMA Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Mark Zhang <markz@mellanox.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Alex Rosenbaum <rosenbaumalex@gmail.com>,
	RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
	Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@mellanox.com>,
	Maor Gottlieb <maorg@mellanox.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] RoCE v2.0 Entropy - IPv6 Flow Label and UDP Source Port
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:06:28 +0000
Message-ID: <cb5ab63b-57cd-46ac-0d51-8bffaf537590@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <91155305-10f0-22b5-b93b-2953c53dfc46@talpey.com>

On 2/19/2020 10:01 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
> On 2/18/2020 8:51 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
>> On 2/19/2020 1:41 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2020 9:16 AM, Tom Talpey wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2020 1:27 AM, Mark Zhang wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2020 10:23 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/13/2020 11:41 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:26:09AM -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If both src & dst ports are in the high value range you loss those
>>>>>>>>> hash bits in the masking.
>>>>>>>>> If src & dst port are both 0xE000, your masked hash equals 0. 
>>>>>>>>> You'll
>>>>>>>>> get the same hash if both ports are equal 0xF000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but this is because it's a 20-bit hash of a 32-bit object.
>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> will always be collisions, this is just one example. My concern is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> statistical spread of the results. I argue it's not changed by the
>>>>>>>> proposed bit-folding, possibly even damaged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always thought that 'folding' by modulo results in an abnormal
>>>>>>> statistical distribution
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point here is not collisions but to have a hash distribution 
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is generally uniform for the input space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex, it would be good to make a quick program to measure the
>>>>>>> uniformity of the distribution..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did some tests with a quick program (hope it's not buggy...),
>>>>>> seems the hash without "folding" has a better distribution than hash
>>>>>> with fold. The "hash quality" is reflected by the "total_access"[1]
>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tested only with cma_dport from 18515 (ib_write_bw default) to
>>>>>> 18524. I can do more tests if required, for example use multiple
>>>>>> cma_dport in one statistic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24729730/measuring-a-hash-functions-quality-for-use-with-maps-assosiative-arrays 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ./a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> max: Say for slot x there are tb[x] items, then 'max = max(tb[x])';
>>>>>> Lower is better;
>>>>>> min: Say for slot x there are tb[x] items, then 'min = min(tb[x])';
>>>>>> Likely min is always 0
>>>>>> total_access: The sum of all 'accesses' (for each slot:
>>>>>> accesses=n*(n+1)/2); Lower is better
>>>>>> n[X]: How many slots that has X items
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18515:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32514 n[2] =
>>>>>> 126
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 10 min 0 total_access 51740  n[1] = 4420  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4670  n[3] = 3112  n[4] = 1433  n[5] = 535   n[6] = 163   n[7] = 31
>>>>>> n[8] = 5     n[9] = 2     n[10] = 1
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 4 min 0 total_access 48618   n[1] = 532   n[2] =
>>>>>> 7926  n[3] = 530   n[4] = 3698
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18516:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 3 min 0 total_access 32774  n[1] = 31214 n[2] =
>>>>>> 770    n[3] = 4
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 8 min 0 total_access 50808   n[1] = 4406  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4873  n[3] = 3157  n[4] = 1413  n[5] = 509   n[6] = 129   n[7] = 20
>>>>>> n[8] = 4
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 2 min 1 total_access 32766   n[1] = 2     n[2] =
>>>>>> 16382
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18517:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32250 n[2] =
>>>>>> 258
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 10 min 0 total_access 54916  n[1] = 4536  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4170  n[3] = 2817  n[4] = 1445  n[5] = 622   n[6] = 275   n[7] = 94
>>>>>> n[8] = 22    n[9] = 5     n[10] = 2
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 3 min 1 total_access 38402   n[1] = 2820  n[2] =
>>>>>> 10746 n[3] = 2818
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18518:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32066 n[2] =
>>>>>> 350
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 8 min 0 total_access 50018   n[1] = 4435  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4970  n[3] = 3294  n[4] = 1376  n[5] = 465   n[6] = 92    n[7] = 16
>>>>>> n[8] = 2
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 2 min 1 total_access 32766   n[1] = 2     n[2] =
>>>>>> 16382
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18519:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 3 min 0 total_access 32774  n[1] = 31816 n[2] =
>>>>>> 469    n[3] = 4
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 8 min 0 total_access 51462   n[1] = 4414  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4734  n[3] = 3088  n[4] = 1466  n[5] = 508   n[6] = 160   n[7] = 32
>>>>>> n[8] = 4
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 4 min 0 total_access 45490   n[1] = 3662  n[2] =
>>>>>> 6360  n[3] = 3660  n[4] = 1351
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18520:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 6 min 0 total_access 34618  n[1] = 20349 n[2] =
>>>>>> 5027  n[3] = 550   n[4] = 164   n[5] = 9     n[6] = 2
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 13 min 0 total_access 82542  n[1] = 549   n[2] =
>>>>>> 1167  n[3] = 1635  n[4] = 1706  n[5] = 1341  n[6] = 836   n[7] = 483
>>>>>> n[8] = 223   n[9] = 87    n[10] = 27
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 4 min 0 total_access 65530 n[3] = 2     n[4] 
>>>>>> = 8190
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18521:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 31924 n[2] =
>>>>>> 421
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 9 min 0 total_access 51864   n[1] = 4505  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4645  n[3] = 3038  n[4] = 1464  n[5] = 542   n[6] = 154   n[7] = 43
>>>>>> n[8] = 6     n[9] = 2
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 3 min 1 total_access 32810   n[1] = 24    n[2] =
>>>>>> 16338 n[3] = 22
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18522:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 3 min 0 total_access 32768  n[1] = 32197 n[2] =
>>>>>> 283    n[3] = 1
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 9 min 0 total_access 50850   n[1] = 4561  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4756  n[3] = 3187  n[4] = 1452  n[5] = 453   n[6] = 137   n[7] = 29
>>>>>> n[8] = 2     n[9] = 2
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 2 min 1 total_access 32766   n[1] = 2     n[2] =
>>>>>> 16382
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18523:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32514 n[2] =
>>>>>> 126
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 8 min 0 total_access 52208   n[1] = 4426  n[2] =
>>>>>> 4609  n[3] = 3069  n[4] = 1435  n[5] = 533   n[6] = 180   n[7] = 50
>>>>>> n[8] = 10
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 4 min 0 total_access 46062   n[1] = 3096  n[2] =
>>>>>> 6640  n[3] = 3094  n[4] = 1777
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18524:
>>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 3 min 0 total_access 32774  n[1] = 31362 n[2] =
>>>>>> 696    n[3] = 4
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 8 min 0 total_access 49490   n[1] = 4440  n[2] =
>>>>>> 5148  n[3] = 3240  n[4] = 1413  n[5] = 394   n[6] = 97    n[7] = 14
>>>>>> n[8] = 1
>>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766  n[1] = 32766
>>>>>>       udp_sport: max 2 min 1 total_access 32766   n[1] = 2     n[2] =
>>>>>> 16382
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another finding is, when cma_dport is multiple of 0x200 (i.e., 0x600,
>>>>> 0x800, ... 0xFE00), the hash distribution is tens of times worse then
>>>>> others. For examples when dport is 18431 and 18432:
>>>>>
>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18431:
>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>       flow_label: max 2 min 0 total_access 32766
>>>>>       udp_sport:  max 8 min 0 total_access 50410
>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>       flow_label: max 1 min 0 total_access 32766
>>>>>       udp_sport:  max 4 min 0 total_access 48126
>>>>>
>>>>> cm source port range [32768, 65534], dest port 18432(0x4800):
>>>>> Hash with folding:
>>>>>       flow_label: max 133 min 0 total_access 1072938
>>>>>
>>>>>       udp_sport:  max 203 min 0 total_access 2126644
>>>>>
>>>>> Hash without folding:
>>>>>       flow_label: max 64 min 0   total_access 1048450
>>>>>
>>>>>       udp_sport:  max 1024 min 0 total_access 16775170
>>>>
>>>> Good data! It certainly indicates an issue with the simple
>>>> binary modulus for treuncating 32->20 bits. But the extremely
>>>> narrow testing range limits the conclusions considerably:
>>>>
>>>>   >> I tested only with cma_dport from 18515 (ib_write_bw default) to
>>>>   >> 18524. I can do more tests if required, for example use multiple
>>>>   >> cma_dport in one statistic.
>>>>
>>>> This hash is intended to provide entropy across the entire port
>>>> range and we should evaluate it as such. At a minimum, the source
>>>> port can vary much more widely, from Alex's original message it's
>>>> 0xC000 - 0xFFFF.
>>>>
>>>>> UDP source port selection must adhere IANA port allocation ranges.
>>>>> Thus we will
>>>>> be using IANA recommendation for Ephemeral port range of:
>>>>> 49152-65535, or in
>>>>> hex: 0xC000-0xFFFF.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not certain what the range of the destination port might be, but
>>>> as a Service ID, a good assumption is the full range of 0x1 - 0xBFFF.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance you could scale up your test, to measure the original
>>>> proposed hash across these broader ranges?
>>>>
>>>>>    u32 hash = DstPort * SrcPort;
>>>>>    hash ^= (hash >> 16);
>>>>>    hash ^= (hash >> 8);
>>>>>    AH_ATTR.GRH.flow_label = hash AND IB_GRH_FLOWLABEL_MASK;
>>>
>>> I did an even quicker-and-dirtier test, with the attached. Both
>>> the folding and non-folding methods display, to me, pretty much
>>> the same behavior. And there's a fairly significant periodicity
>>> with a doubling of the hash collision rate, every 8 or so buckets.
>>>
>>> The "folding" version has higher spikes at these points than the
>>> non-folding, in fact. As you mentioned, there are a few more "zero"
>>> hashes, but that's expected, and not that different for both.
>>>
>>> Assuming you agree with my C000-FFFF and 1-BFFF port ranges, there
>>> are 800M possible permutations, and of course 1M hash buckets. So,
>>> an 800:1 collision rate is expected. But the numbers range from
>>> the mid-300's to several-1000's. That variance seems high to me.
>>>
>>> I really think there needs to be a flatter spectrum, here. These
>>> collisions can cause significant congestion effects at scale. I
>>> suggested trying a CRC-20 of the 32-bit src<<16|dst, but it's going
>>> to take me a little time to find that.
>>>
>>
>> I did tests with range cma_sport [0xC000, 0xFFFF] and cma_dport [1025,
>> 0xFFFF] (but each test with one dport), and found:
>>
>> 1. The folding and non-folding results are similar;
>> 2. When dport is multiple of 0x200 the result is very bad. I also tested
>>      with your hashtest.c, there are much more "zero" hashes when 
>> sport or
>>      dport is multiple of 0x200.
>>
>> For the hash one of the original goal is symmetry, i.e.:
>>       f(sport, dport) = f(dport, sport)
> 
> I'm very curious why this is a requirement. The hash is used to map
> to a packet queue, which enforces ordering as well as providing a
> congestion throttle point. These queues are one-way, and therefore
> the same value has no effect when used symmetrically - it only works
> one-way, the reverse flow is completely independent.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 

The symmetry is important when calculate flow_label with DstQPn/SrcQPn 
for non-RDMA CM Service ID (check the first mail), so that the server 
and client will have same flow_label and udp_sport. But looks like it is 
not important in this case.

>> If that's not important I feel "sport * 31 + dport" [1] has a better 
>> result.
>>
>> [1] https://www.strchr.com/hash_functions
> 
> Well, that'd be simple!
> 
> Tom.


  reply index

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-08 14:26 Alex Rosenbaum
2020-01-15  9:48 ` Mark Zhang
2020-02-06 14:18 ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-06 14:35   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-02-06 14:39   ` Alex Rosenbaum
2020-02-06 15:19     ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-08  9:58       ` Alex Rosenbaum
2020-02-12 15:47         ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-13 11:03           ` Alex Rosenbaum
2020-02-13 15:26             ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-13 15:41               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-02-14 14:23                 ` Mark Zhang
2020-02-15  6:27                   ` Mark Zhang
2020-02-18 14:16                     ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-18 17:41                       ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-19  1:51                         ` Mark Zhang
2020-02-19  2:01                           ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-19  2:06                             ` Mark Zhang [this message]
2020-02-19 13:06                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-02-19 17:41                                 ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-19 17:55                                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-02-20  1:04                                   ` Mark Zhang
2020-02-21 14:47                                     ` Tom Talpey
2020-02-25 13:20                                       ` Alex Rosenbaum

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=cb5ab63b-57cd-46ac-0d51-8bffaf537590@mellanox.com \
    --to=markz@mellanox.com \
    --cc=alexr@mellanox.com \
    --cc=eranbe@mellanox.com \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=leonro@mellanox.com \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maorg@mellanox.com \
    --cc=rosenbaumalex@gmail.com \
    --cc=tom@talpey.com \
    --cc=yishaih@mellanox.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

Linux-RDMA Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/0 linux-rdma/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-rdma linux-rdma/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma \
		linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-rdma

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git