From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: "haibinzhang(张海斌)" <haibinzhang@tencent.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"yunfangtai(台运方)" <yunfangtai@tencent.com>,
"lidongchen(陈立东)" <lidongchen@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-net: set packet weight of tx polling to 2 * vq size
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:46:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180409084601-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88D661ADF6AFBF42B2AB88D8E7682B0901FC49BE@EXMBX-SZMAIL011.tencent.com>
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:09:20AM +0000, haibinzhang(张海斌) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:22:37AM +0000, haibinzhang(张海斌) wrote:
> > > handle_tx will delay rx for tens or even hundreds of milliseconds when tx busy
> > > polling udp packets with small length(e.g. 1byte udp payload), because setting
> > > VHOST_NET_WEIGHT takes into account only sent-bytes but no single packet length.
> > >
> > > Ping-Latencies shown below were tested between two Virtual Machines using
> > > netperf (UDP_STREAM, len=1), and then another machine pinged the client:
> > >
> > > Packet-Weight Ping-Latencies(millisecond)
> > > min avg max
> > > Origin 3.319 18.489 57.303
> > > 64 1.643 2.021 2.552
> > > 128 1.825 2.600 3.224
> > > 256 1.997 2.710 4.295
> > > 512 1.860 3.171 4.631
> > > 1024 2.002 4.173 9.056
> > > 2048 2.257 5.650 9.688
> > > 4096 2.093 8.508 15.943
> >
> > And this is with Q size 256 right?
>
> Yes. Ping-latencies with 512 VQ size show below.
>
> Packet-Weight Ping-Latencies(millisecond)
> min avg max
> Origin 6.357 29.177 66.245
> 64 2.798 3.614 4.403
> 128 2.861 3.820 4.775
> 256 3.008 4.018 4.807
> 512 3.254 4.523 5.824
> 1024 3.079 5.335 7.747
> 2048 3.944 8.201 12.762
> 4096 4.158 11.057 19.985
>
> We will submit again. Is there anything else?
Seems pretty consistent, a small dip at 2 VQ sizes.
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> >
> > > Ring size is a hint from device about a burst size it can tolerate. Based on
> > > benchmarks, set the weight to 2 * vq size.
> > >
> > > To evaluate this change, another tests were done using netperf(RR, TX) between
> > > two machines with Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6133 CPU @ 2.50GHz, and vq size was
> > > tweaked through qemu. Results shown below does not show obvious changes.
> >
> > What I asked for is ping-latency with different VQ sizes,
> > streaming below does not show anything.
> >
> > > vq size=256 TCP_RR vq size=512 TCP_RR
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 1/ 1/ -7%/ -2% 1/ 1/ 0%/ -2%
> > > 1/ 4/ +1%/ 0% 1/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
> > > 1/ 8/ +1%/ -2% 1/ 8/ 0%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 1/ -6%/ 0% 64/ 1/ +7%/ +3%
> > > 64/ 4/ 0%/ +2% 64/ 4/ -1%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 8/ 0%/ 0% 64/ 8/ -1%/ -2%
> > > 256/ 1/ -3%/ -4% 256/ 1/ -4%/ -2%
> > > 256/ 4/ +3%/ +4% 256/ 4/ +1%/ +2%
> > > 256/ 8/ +2%/ 0% 256/ 8/ +1%/ -1%
> > >
> > > vq size=256 UDP_RR vq size=512 UDP_RR
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 1/ 1/ -5%/ +1% 1/ 1/ -3%/ -2%
> > > 1/ 4/ +4%/ +1% 1/ 4/ -2%/ +2%
> > > 1/ 8/ -1%/ -1% 1/ 8/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 1/ -2%/ -3% 64/ 1/ +1%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 4/ -5%/ -1% 64/ 4/ +2%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 8/ 0%/ -1% 64/ 8/ -2%/ +1%
> > > 256/ 1/ +7%/ +1% 256/ 1/ -7%/ 0%
> > > 256/ 4/ +1%/ +1% 256/ 4/ -3%/ -4%
> > > 256/ 8/ +2%/ +2% 256/ 8/ +1%/ +1%
> > >
> > > vq size=256 TCP_STREAM vq size=512 TCP_STREAM
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 64/ 1/ 0%/ -3% 64/ 1/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 4/ +3%/ -1% 64/ 4/ -2%/ +4%
> > > 64/ 8/ +9%/ -4% 64/ 8/ -1%/ +2%
> > > 256/ 1/ +1%/ -4% 256/ 1/ +1%/ +1%
> > > 256/ 4/ -1%/ -1% 256/ 4/ -3%/ 0%
> > > 256/ 8/ +7%/ +5% 256/ 8/ -3%/ 0%
> > > 512/ 1/ +1%/ 0% 512/ 1/ -1%/ -1%
> > > 512/ 4/ +1%/ -1% 512/ 4/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 512/ 8/ +7%/ -5% 512/ 8/ +6%/ -1%
> > > 1024/ 1/ 0%/ -1% 1024/ 1/ 0%/ +1%
> > > 1024/ 4/ +3%/ 0% 1024/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
> > > 1024/ 8/ +8%/ +5% 1024/ 8/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 2048/ 1/ +2%/ +2% 2048/ 1/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 2048/ 4/ +1%/ 0% 2048/ 4/ 0%/ -1%
> > > 2048/ 8/ -2%/ 0% 2048/ 8/ 5%/ -1%
> > > 4096/ 1/ -2%/ 0% 4096/ 1/ -2%/ 0%
> > > 4096/ 4/ +2%/ 0% 4096/ 4/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 4096/ 8/ +9%/ -2% 4096/ 8/ -5%/ -1%
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Haibin Zhang <haibinzhang@tencent.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yunfang Tai <yunfangtai@tencent.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@tencent.com>
> >
> > Code is fine but I'd like to see validation of the heuristic
> > 2*vq->num with another vq size.
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vhost/net.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > index 8139bc70ad7d..3563a305cc0a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(experimental_zcopytx, "Enable Zero Copy TX;"
> > > * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving others. */
> > > #define VHOST_NET_WEIGHT 0x80000
> > >
> > > +/* Max number of packets transferred before requeueing the job.
> > > + * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving rx. */
> > > +#define VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT(vq) ((vq)->num * 2)
> > > +
> > > /* MAX number of TX used buffers for outstanding zerocopy */
> > > #define VHOST_MAX_PEND 128
> > > #define VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN 256
> > > @@ -473,6 +477,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > struct socket *sock;
> > > struct vhost_net_ubuf_ref *uninitialized_var(ubufs);
> > > bool zcopy, zcopy_used;
> > > + int sent_pkts = 0;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > > sock = vq->private_data;
> > > @@ -580,7 +585,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > else
> > > vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
> > > vhost_net_tx_packet(net);
> > > - if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT)) {
> > > + if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT) ||
> > > + unlikely(++sent_pkts >= VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT(vq))) {
> > > vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.12.3
> > >
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: "haibinzhang(张海斌)" <haibinzhang@tencent.com>
Cc: "Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"lidongchen(陈立东)" <lidongchen@tencent.com>,
"yunfangtai(台运方)" <yunfangtai@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-net: set packet weight of tx polling to 2 * vq size
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:46:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180409084601-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88D661ADF6AFBF42B2AB88D8E7682B0901FC49BE@EXMBX-SZMAIL011.tencent.com>
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:09:20AM +0000, haibinzhang(张海斌) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:22:37AM +0000, haibinzhang(张海斌) wrote:
> > > handle_tx will delay rx for tens or even hundreds of milliseconds when tx busy
> > > polling udp packets with small length(e.g. 1byte udp payload), because setting
> > > VHOST_NET_WEIGHT takes into account only sent-bytes but no single packet length.
> > >
> > > Ping-Latencies shown below were tested between two Virtual Machines using
> > > netperf (UDP_STREAM, len=1), and then another machine pinged the client:
> > >
> > > Packet-Weight Ping-Latencies(millisecond)
> > > min avg max
> > > Origin 3.319 18.489 57.303
> > > 64 1.643 2.021 2.552
> > > 128 1.825 2.600 3.224
> > > 256 1.997 2.710 4.295
> > > 512 1.860 3.171 4.631
> > > 1024 2.002 4.173 9.056
> > > 2048 2.257 5.650 9.688
> > > 4096 2.093 8.508 15.943
> >
> > And this is with Q size 256 right?
>
> Yes. Ping-latencies with 512 VQ size show below.
>
> Packet-Weight Ping-Latencies(millisecond)
> min avg max
> Origin 6.357 29.177 66.245
> 64 2.798 3.614 4.403
> 128 2.861 3.820 4.775
> 256 3.008 4.018 4.807
> 512 3.254 4.523 5.824
> 1024 3.079 5.335 7.747
> 2048 3.944 8.201 12.762
> 4096 4.158 11.057 19.985
>
> We will submit again. Is there anything else?
Seems pretty consistent, a small dip at 2 VQ sizes.
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> >
> > > Ring size is a hint from device about a burst size it can tolerate. Based on
> > > benchmarks, set the weight to 2 * vq size.
> > >
> > > To evaluate this change, another tests were done using netperf(RR, TX) between
> > > two machines with Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6133 CPU @ 2.50GHz, and vq size was
> > > tweaked through qemu. Results shown below does not show obvious changes.
> >
> > What I asked for is ping-latency with different VQ sizes,
> > streaming below does not show anything.
> >
> > > vq size=256 TCP_RR vq size=512 TCP_RR
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 1/ 1/ -7%/ -2% 1/ 1/ 0%/ -2%
> > > 1/ 4/ +1%/ 0% 1/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
> > > 1/ 8/ +1%/ -2% 1/ 8/ 0%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 1/ -6%/ 0% 64/ 1/ +7%/ +3%
> > > 64/ 4/ 0%/ +2% 64/ 4/ -1%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 8/ 0%/ 0% 64/ 8/ -1%/ -2%
> > > 256/ 1/ -3%/ -4% 256/ 1/ -4%/ -2%
> > > 256/ 4/ +3%/ +4% 256/ 4/ +1%/ +2%
> > > 256/ 8/ +2%/ 0% 256/ 8/ +1%/ -1%
> > >
> > > vq size=256 UDP_RR vq size=512 UDP_RR
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 1/ 1/ -5%/ +1% 1/ 1/ -3%/ -2%
> > > 1/ 4/ +4%/ +1% 1/ 4/ -2%/ +2%
> > > 1/ 8/ -1%/ -1% 1/ 8/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 1/ -2%/ -3% 64/ 1/ +1%/ +1%
> > > 64/ 4/ -5%/ -1% 64/ 4/ +2%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 8/ 0%/ -1% 64/ 8/ -2%/ +1%
> > > 256/ 1/ +7%/ +1% 256/ 1/ -7%/ 0%
> > > 256/ 4/ +1%/ +1% 256/ 4/ -3%/ -4%
> > > 256/ 8/ +2%/ +2% 256/ 8/ +1%/ +1%
> > >
> > > vq size=256 TCP_STREAM vq size=512 TCP_STREAM
> > > size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize% size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
> > > 64/ 1/ 0%/ -3% 64/ 1/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 64/ 4/ +3%/ -1% 64/ 4/ -2%/ +4%
> > > 64/ 8/ +9%/ -4% 64/ 8/ -1%/ +2%
> > > 256/ 1/ +1%/ -4% 256/ 1/ +1%/ +1%
> > > 256/ 4/ -1%/ -1% 256/ 4/ -3%/ 0%
> > > 256/ 8/ +7%/ +5% 256/ 8/ -3%/ 0%
> > > 512/ 1/ +1%/ 0% 512/ 1/ -1%/ -1%
> > > 512/ 4/ +1%/ -1% 512/ 4/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 512/ 8/ +7%/ -5% 512/ 8/ +6%/ -1%
> > > 1024/ 1/ 0%/ -1% 1024/ 1/ 0%/ +1%
> > > 1024/ 4/ +3%/ 0% 1024/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
> > > 1024/ 8/ +8%/ +5% 1024/ 8/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 2048/ 1/ +2%/ +2% 2048/ 1/ -1%/ 0%
> > > 2048/ 4/ +1%/ 0% 2048/ 4/ 0%/ -1%
> > > 2048/ 8/ -2%/ 0% 2048/ 8/ 5%/ -1%
> > > 4096/ 1/ -2%/ 0% 4096/ 1/ -2%/ 0%
> > > 4096/ 4/ +2%/ 0% 4096/ 4/ 0%/ 0%
> > > 4096/ 8/ +9%/ -2% 4096/ 8/ -5%/ -1%
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Haibin Zhang <haibinzhang@tencent.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yunfang Tai <yunfangtai@tencent.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@tencent.com>
> >
> > Code is fine but I'd like to see validation of the heuristic
> > 2*vq->num with another vq size.
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vhost/net.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > index 8139bc70ad7d..3563a305cc0a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(experimental_zcopytx, "Enable Zero Copy TX;"
> > > * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving others. */
> > > #define VHOST_NET_WEIGHT 0x80000
> > >
> > > +/* Max number of packets transferred before requeueing the job.
> > > + * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving rx. */
> > > +#define VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT(vq) ((vq)->num * 2)
> > > +
> > > /* MAX number of TX used buffers for outstanding zerocopy */
> > > #define VHOST_MAX_PEND 128
> > > #define VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN 256
> > > @@ -473,6 +477,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > struct socket *sock;
> > > struct vhost_net_ubuf_ref *uninitialized_var(ubufs);
> > > bool zcopy, zcopy_used;
> > > + int sent_pkts = 0;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > > sock = vq->private_data;
> > > @@ -580,7 +585,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > else
> > > vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
> > > vhost_net_tx_packet(net);
> > > - if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT)) {
> > > + if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT) ||
> > > + unlikely(++sent_pkts >= VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT(vq))) {
> > > vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.12.3
> > >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-09 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-09 4:09 [PATCH] vhost-net: set packet weight of tx polling to 2 * vq size haibinzhang(张海斌)
2018-04-09 5:46 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2018-04-09 5:46 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-04-06 8:22 haibinzhang(张海斌)
2018-04-08 16:52 ` David Miller
2018-04-08 16:52 ` David Miller
2018-04-09 2:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-04-09 2:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=20180409084601-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=haibinzhang@tencent.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lidongchen@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yunfangtai@tencent.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
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.