All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ixgbe: Limit lowest interrupt rate for adaptive interrupt moderation to 12K
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 03:07:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1441188420.2783.18.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E655A3.9010304@gmail.com>

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 18:49 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 07/30/2015 03:19 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > This patch updates the lowest limit for adaptive interrupt interrupt
> > moderation to roughly 12K interrupts per second.
> >
> > The way I came about reaching 12K as the desired interrupt rate is
> by
> > testing with UDP flows.  Specifically I had a simple test that ran a
> > netperf UDP_STREAM test at varying sizes.  What I found was as the
> packet
> > sizes increased the performance fell steadily behind until we were
> only
> > able to receive at ~4Gb/s with a message size of 65507.  A bit of
> digging
> > found that we were dropping packets for the socket in the network
> stack,
> > and looking at things further what I found was I could solve it by
> increasing
> > the interrupt rate, or increasing the rmem_default/rmem_max.  What I
> found was
> > that when the interrupt coalescing resulted in more data being
> processed
> > per interrupt than could be stored in the socket buffer we started
> losing
> > packets and the performance dropped.  So I reached 12K based on the
> > following math.
> >
> > rmem_default = 212992
> > skb->truesize = 2994
> > 212992 / 2994 = 71.14 packets to fill the buffer
> >
> > packet rate at 1514 packet size is 812744pps
> > 71.14 / 812744 = 87.9us to fill socket buffer
> >
> > >From there it was just a matter of choosing the interrupt rate and
> > providing a bit of wiggle room which is why I decided to go with 12K
> > interrupts per second as that uses a value of 84us.
> >
> > The data below is based on VM to VM over a direct assigned ixgbe
> interface.
> > The test run was:
> >       netperf -H <ip> -t UDP_STREAM"
> >
> > Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages                   CPU
> Service
> > Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput   Util
> Demand
> > bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   10^6bits/sec % SS
> us/KB
> > Before:
> > 212992   65507   60.00     1100662      0     9613.4     10.89
> 0.557
> > 212992           60.00      473474            4135.4     11.27
> 0.576
> >
> > After:
> > 212992   65507   60.00     1100413      0     9611.2     10.73
> 0.549
> > 212992           60.00      974132            8508.3     11.69
> 0.598
> >
> > Using bare metal the data is similar but not as dramatic as the
> throughput
> > increases from about 8.5Gb/s to 9.5Gb/s.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
> 
> Has there been any update on this patch?  I submitted it just over a 
> month ago now and it hasn't received any feedback.  I was hoping this 
> could be submitted before the merge window closes for net-next.

It will be in the next series I push later today.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20150902/620d7634/attachment.asc>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ixgbe: Limit lowest interrupt rate for adaptive interrupt moderation to 12K
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 03:07:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1441188420.2783.18.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E655A3.9010304@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2780 bytes --]

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 18:49 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 07/30/2015 03:19 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > This patch updates the lowest limit for adaptive interrupt interrupt
> > moderation to roughly 12K interrupts per second.
> >
> > The way I came about reaching 12K as the desired interrupt rate is
> by
> > testing with UDP flows.  Specifically I had a simple test that ran a
> > netperf UDP_STREAM test at varying sizes.  What I found was as the
> packet
> > sizes increased the performance fell steadily behind until we were
> only
> > able to receive at ~4Gb/s with a message size of 65507.  A bit of
> digging
> > found that we were dropping packets for the socket in the network
> stack,
> > and looking at things further what I found was I could solve it by
> increasing
> > the interrupt rate, or increasing the rmem_default/rmem_max.  What I
> found was
> > that when the interrupt coalescing resulted in more data being
> processed
> > per interrupt than could be stored in the socket buffer we started
> losing
> > packets and the performance dropped.  So I reached 12K based on the
> > following math.
> >
> > rmem_default = 212992
> > skb->truesize = 2994
> > 212992 / 2994 = 71.14 packets to fill the buffer
> >
> > packet rate at 1514 packet size is 812744pps
> > 71.14 / 812744 = 87.9us to fill socket buffer
> >
> > >From there it was just a matter of choosing the interrupt rate and
> > providing a bit of wiggle room which is why I decided to go with 12K
> > interrupts per second as that uses a value of 84us.
> >
> > The data below is based on VM to VM over a direct assigned ixgbe
> interface.
> > The test run was:
> >       netperf -H <ip> -t UDP_STREAM"
> >
> > Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages                   CPU
> Service
> > Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput   Util
> Demand
> > bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   10^6bits/sec % SS
> us/KB
> > Before:
> > 212992   65507   60.00     1100662      0     9613.4     10.89
> 0.557
> > 212992           60.00      473474            4135.4     11.27
> 0.576
> >
> > After:
> > 212992   65507   60.00     1100413      0     9611.2     10.73
> 0.549
> > 212992           60.00      974132            8508.3     11.69
> 0.598
> >
> > Using bare metal the data is similar but not as dramatic as the
> throughput
> > increases from about 8.5Gb/s to 9.5Gb/s.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
> 
> Has there been any update on this patch?  I submitted it just over a 
> month ago now and it hasn't received any feedback.  I was hoping this 
> could be submitted before the merge window closes for net-next.

It will be in the next series I push later today.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-09-02 10:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-30 22:19 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ixgbe: Limit lowest interrupt rate for adaptive interrupt moderation to 12K Alexander Duyck
2015-07-30 22:19 ` Alexander Duyck
2015-09-02  1:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Duyck
2015-09-02  1:49   ` Alexander Duyck
2015-09-02  5:44   ` Hisashi T Fujinaka
2015-09-02  5:44     ` Hisashi T Fujinaka
2015-09-02 10:07   ` Jeff Kirsher [this message]
2015-09-02 10:07     ` Jeff Kirsher
2015-09-10 19:49     ` Singh, Krishneil K
2015-09-10 19:49       ` Singh, Krishneil K

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=1441188420.2783.18.camel@intel.com \
    --to=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.