Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc

From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <olteanv@gmail.com>,
	<ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andriin@fb.com>,
	<edumazet@google.com>, <weiwan@google.com>,
	<cong.wang@bytedance.com>, <ap420073@gmail.com>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linuxarm@openeuler.org>, <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	<linux-can@vger.kernel.org>, <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
	<xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>, <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	<andrii@kernel.org>, <kafai@fb.com>, <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	<yhs@fb.com>, <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>, <mzhivich@akamai.com>,
	<johunt@akamai.com>, <albcamus@gmail.com>,
	<kehuan.feng@gmail.com>, <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
	<atenart@kernel.org>, <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
	<hdanton@sina.com>, <jgross@suse.com>, <JKosina@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:23:36 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51b1ec1f-e4aa-8876-10e8-1ef84f067728@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210419235503.eo77f6s73a4d25oh@lion.mk-sys.cz>

On 2021/4/20 7:55, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:29:46PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>
>> As pointed out in the discussion on v3, this patch may result in
>> significantly higher CPU consumption with multiple threads competing on
>> a saturated outgoing device. I missed this submission so that I haven't
>> checked it yet but given the description of v3->v4 changes above, it's
>> quite likely that it suffers from the same problem.
> 
> And it indeed does. However, with the additional patch from the v3
> discussion, the numbers are approximately the same as with an unpatched
> mainline kernel.
> 
> As with v4, I tried this patch on top of 5.12-rc7 with real devices.
> I used two machines with 10Gb/s Intel ixgbe NICs, sender has 16 CPUs
> (2 8-core CPUs with HT disabled) and 16 Rx/Tx queues, receiver has
> 48 CPUs (2 12-core CPUs with HT enabled) and 48 Rx/Tx queues.
> 
>   threads    5.12-rc7    5.12-rc7 + v4    5.12-rc7 + v4 + stop
>      1        25.1%          38.1%            22.9%
>      8        66.2%         277.0%            74.1%
>     16        90.1%         150.7%            91.0%
>     32       107.2%         272.6%           108.3%
>     64       116.3%         487.5%           118.1%
>    128       126.1%         946.7%           126.9%
> 
> (The values are normalized to one core, i.e. 100% corresponds to one
> fully used logical CPU.)
> 
> So it seems that repeated scheduling while the queue was stopped is
> indeed the main performance issue and that other cases of the logic
> being too pessimistic do not play significant role. There is an
> exception with 8 connections/threads and the result with just this
> series also looks abnormally high (e.g. much higher than with
> 16 threads). It might be worth investigating what happens there and
> what do the results with other thread counts around 8 look like.

Will try to investigate the 8 connections/threads case.

> 
> I'll run some more tests with other traffic patterns tomorrow and
> I'm also going to take a closer look at the additional patch.

Thanks for taking the detail testing and looking.

> 
> Michal
> 
> .
> 