Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits

[John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>]

On 11/28/2011 11:02 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 05:23 +0100, Dave Taht a écrit :
>>> In this test 100 netperf TCP_STREAMs were started to saturate the link.
>>> A single instance of a netperf TCP_RR was run with high priority set.
>>> Queuing discipline in pfifo_fast, NIC is e1000 with TX ring size set to
>>> 1024.  tps for the high priority RR is listed.
>>>
>>> No BQL, tso on: 3000-3200K bytes in queue: 36 tps
>>> BQL, tso on: 156-194K bytes in queue, 535 tps
>>
>>> No BQL, tso off: 453-454K bytes int queue, 234 tps
>>> BQL, tso off: 66K bytes in queue, 914 tps
>>
>>
>> Jeeze. Under what circumstances is tso a win? I've always
>> had great trouble with it, as some e1000 cards do it rather badly.
>>
>> I assume these are while running at GigE speeds?
>>
>> What of 100Mbit? 10GigE? (I will duplicate your tests
>> at 100Mbit, but as for 10gigE...)
>>
> 
> TSO on means a low priority 65Kbytes packet can be in TX ring right
> before the high priority packet. If you cant afford the delay, you lose.
> 
> There is no mystery here.
> 
> If you want low latencies :
> - TSO must be disabled so that packets are at most one ethernet frame. 
> - You adjust BQL limit to small value
> - You even can lower MTU to get even more better latencies.
> 
> If you want good throughput from your [10]GigE and low cpu cost, TSO
> should be enabled.
> 
> If you want to be smart, you could have a dynamic behavior :
> 
> Let TSO on as long as no high priority low latency producer is running
> (if low latency packets are locally generated)
> 
> 

I wonder if we should consider enabling TSO/GSO per queue or per traffic
class on devices that support this. At least in devices that support
multiple traffic classes it seems to be a common usage case to put bulk
storage traffic (iSCSI) on a traffic class and low latency traffic on a
separate traffic class, VoIP for example.

John.