* XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison @ 2022-09-22 8:21 Federico Parola 2022-09-22 18:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Federico Parola @ 2022-09-22 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xdp-newbies Dear all, I would like to share with this community a draft I recently wrote [1] on the performance comparison of XDP and AF_XDP packet processing. In the paper we found some interesting and unexpected results (especially related to the impact of addressed memory on the performance of the two technologies) and tried to envision a combined use of the two technologies, especially to tackle the poor performance of re-injecting packets into the kernel from user space to leverage the TCP/IP stack. Any comment and suggestion from this community or any type of joint work/collaboration would be very appreciated. Best regards, Federico Parola [1] https://fedeparola.github.io/publication/xdp-af_xdp-cmp/Comparing_User_Space_and_In_Kernel_Packet_Processing_for_Edge_Data_Centers.pdf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison 2022-09-22 8:21 XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison Federico Parola @ 2022-09-22 18:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2022-09-23 13:11 ` Federico Parola 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen @ 2022-09-22 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Federico Parola, xdp-newbies Federico Parola <federico.parola@polito.it> writes: > Dear all, > I would like to share with this community a draft I recently wrote [1] > on the performance comparison of XDP and AF_XDP packet processing. > In the paper we found some interesting and unexpected results > (especially related to the impact of addressed memory on the performance > of the two technologies) and tried to envision a combined use of the two > technologies, especially to tackle the poor performance of re-injecting > packets into the kernel from user space to leverage the TCP/IP stack. > Any comment and suggestion from this community or any type of joint > work/collaboration would be very appreciated. Hi Federico Thank you for the link! All in all I thought it was a nicely done performance comparison. One thing that might be interesting would be to do the same comparison on a different driver. A lot of the performance details you're discovering in this paper boils down to details about how the driver data path is implemented. For instance, it's an Intel-specific thing that there's a whole separate path for zero-copy AF_XDP. Any plans to replicate the study using, say, an mlx5-based NIC? Also, a couple of comments on details: - The performance delta you show in Figure 9 where AF_XDP is faster at hair-pin forwarding than XDP was a bit puzzling; the two applications should basically be doing the same thing. It seems to be because the i40e driver converts the xdp_buff struct to an xdp_frame before transmitting it out the interface again: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_txrx.c#L2280 - It's interesting that userspace seems to handle scattered memory accesses over a large range better than kernel-space. It would be interesting to know why; you mention you're leaving this to future studies, any plans of following up and trying to figure this out? :) Finally, since you seem to have your tests packaged up nicely, do you think it would be possible to take (some of) them and turn them into a kind of "performance CI" test suite, that can be run automatically, or semi-automatically to catch future performance regressions in the XDP stack? Such a test suite would be pretty great to have so we can avoid the "death by a thousand paper cuts" type of gradual performance degradation as we add new features... -Toke ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison 2022-09-22 18:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen @ 2022-09-23 13:11 ` Federico Parola 2022-12-16 15:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Federico Parola @ 2022-09-23 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, xdp-newbies On 22/09/22 20:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Hi Federico > > Thank you for the link! All in all I thought it was a nicely done > performance comparison. Dear Toke, thank you very much for your observations and your interest in my work. > One thing that might be interesting would be to do the same comparison > on a different driver. A lot of the performance details you're > discovering in this paper boils down to details about how the driver > data path is implemented. For instance, it's an Intel-specific thing > that there's a whole separate path for zero-copy AF_XDP. Any plans to > replicate the study using, say, an mlx5-based NIC? The impact of the driver on the results was clear from the beginning, however I wasn’t aware of mlx5 using the same path for XDP and zc AF_XDP, I thought different paths was the norm (my bad for not checking). This could radically change results for NVIDIA NICs. I performed similar (but less extensive) tests on a X540 NIC running the ixgbe driver and the results show similar behavior in the relation between XDP and AF_XDP even though the performance gaps are smaller. Another factor that impacts results is the kernel version: again, same relation between XDP and AF_XDP results but different gaps. In particular I experienced significant performance drops (of both XDP and AF_XDP) moving from kernel 5.15 to 5.16 and another one from 5.18 to 5.19 (the latter much more consistent). Unfortunately I don’t have any mlx5 NICs at disposal in my lab at the moment. If you are aware of any way I could experiment on an NVIDIA NIC (I know there are some open testbeds) that would be very interesting. > Also, a couple of comments on details: > > - The performance delta you show in Figure 9 where AF_XDP is faster at > hair-pin forwarding than XDP was a bit puzzling; the two applications > should basically be doing the same thing. It seems to be because the > i40e driver converts the xdp_buff struct to an xdp_frame before > transmitting it out the interface again: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_txrx.c#L2280 For what concerns XDP_TX performance with AF_XDP sockets enabled (XDP-sk in the draft) this is definitely the case, since the conversion from xdp_buff to xdp_frame requires a copy of the whole packet in a new memory page: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/core/xdp.c#L559 For pure XDP (no AF_XDP sockets enabled) on the other hand, the conversion only requires copying some fields. However, given the very limited size of the packet processing function (macswap), those copies might have a significant impact. This would also explain why the gap between XDP and AF_XDP shrinks so much when we move from macswap (+29%) to the load balancer (+14%). However it seems to me that the conversion is common to all drivers, not specific of Intel, so I wonder if it can be avoided (maybe relying only on the xdp_frame?). > - It's interesting that userspace seems to handle scattered memory > accesses over a large range better than kernel-space. It would be > interesting to know why; you mention you're leaving this to future > studies, any plans of following up and trying to figure this out? :) This is definitely the most curious result. Given my limited (but improving) knowledge of XDP and AF_XDP internals I limited myself to observing this behavior. The key point to move on I think would be mapping the additional LLC store operation that XDP needs for every packet (even when dropping them) to some code in the driver/XDP subsystem. This basically causes XDP-based I/O to have almost double LLC occupancy w.r.t. AF_XDP-based one (checking if this is Intel-specific of applies also to NVIDIA would also help narrow the possibilities). Any guidance on how to further inspect the problem would be really appreciated. > Finally, since you seem to have your tests packaged up nicely, do you > think it would be possible to take (some of) them and turn them into a > kind of "performance CI" test suite, that can be run automatically, or > semi-automatically to catch future performance regressions in the XDP > stack? Such a test suite would be pretty great to have so we can avoid > the "death by a thousand paper cuts" type of gradual performance > degradation as we add new features... I would be very happy if my work could benefit the community. Please let me know if you have any idea or guideline on how my testing suite could be integrated in the XDP environment, I guess the xdp-tools repo could be the ideal target? Best regards, Federico ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison 2022-09-23 13:11 ` Federico Parola @ 2022-12-16 15:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen @ 2022-12-16 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Federico Parola, xdp-newbies Hi Federico Sorry for not replying to this sooner, I just fished it out of my pile of unprocessed email while I was winding things down for the holidays... >> Finally, since you seem to have your tests packaged up nicely, do you >> think it would be possible to take (some of) them and turn them into a >> kind of "performance CI" test suite, that can be run automatically, or >> semi-automatically to catch future performance regressions in the XDP >> stack? Such a test suite would be pretty great to have so we can avoid >> the "death by a thousand paper cuts" type of gradual performance >> degradation as we add new features... > > I would be very happy if my work could benefit the community. Please let > me know if you have any idea or guideline on how my testing suite could > be integrated in the XDP environment, I guess the xdp-tools repo could > be the ideal target? I'd be happy to consider your tool for inclusion into xdp-tools, or into a separate repository under the xdp-project github organisation if that fits better. I think that will mostly depend on how much surrounding setup code is needed to run the experiments: the utilities in xdp-tools are mostly fairly lightweight standalone binaries, so if something more is needed a separate repository may be better. As for how to structure the test utility, that's hard to say off-hand. But one important consideration is making it easy to run (so as few assumptions on the environment as possible), and easy to automate (so that we ideally can use it as an automated CI-style test for performance regressions). Hope that helps! :) -Toke ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-16 15:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-09-22 8:21 XDP and AF_XDP performance comparison Federico Parola 2022-09-22 18:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2022-09-23 13:11 ` Federico Parola 2022-12-16 15:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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).