All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
	Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@intel.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] ixgbe: something wrong with queue selection ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:38:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F8D9C91.5010001@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F8D93E1.9090000@intel.com>

On 4/17/2012 9:01 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 02:16 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:06 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> I have bad feelings with ixgbe and its multiqueue selection.
>>>
>>> On a quad core machine (Q6600), I get lots of reorderings on a single
>>> TCP stream.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently packets happily spread on all available queues, instead of a
>>> single one.
>>>
>>> This defeats GRO at receiver and TCP performance is really bad.
>>>
>>> # ethtool -S eth5|egrep "x_queue_[0123]_packets" ; taskset 1 netperf -H
>>> 192.168.99.1 ; ethtool -S eth5|egrep "x_queue_[0123]_packets"
>>>      tx_queue_0_packets: 24
>>>      tx_queue_1_packets: 26
>>>      tx_queue_2_packets: 32
>>>      tx_queue_3_packets: 16
>>>      rx_queue_0_packets: 11
>>>      rx_queue_1_packets: 47
>>>      rx_queue_2_packets: 27
>>>      rx_queue_3_packets: 22
>>> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
>>> 192.168.99.1 (192.168.99.1) port 0 AF_INET
>>> Recv   Send    Send                          
>>> Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              
>>> Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  
>>> bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec  
>>>
>>>  87380  16384  16384    10.00    3866.43   
>>>      tx_queue_0_packets: 1653201
>>>      tx_queue_1_packets: 608000
>>>      tx_queue_2_packets: 541382
>>>      tx_queue_3_packets: 536543
>>>      rx_queue_0_packets: 434703
>>>      rx_queue_1_packets: 137444
>>>      rx_queue_2_packets: 131023
>>>      rx_queue_3_packets: 128407
>>>
>>> # ip ro get 192.168.99.1
>>> 192.168.99.1 dev eth5  src 192.168.99.2 
>>>     cache  ipid 0x438b rtt 4ms rttvar 4ms cwnd 57 reordering 127
>>>
>>> # lspci -v -s 02:00.0
>>> 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit
>>> SFI/SFP+ Network Connection (rev 01)
>>> 	Subsystem: Intel Corporation Ethernet Server Adapter X520-2
>>> 	Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 16
>>> 	Memory at f1100000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=512K]
>>> 	I/O ports at b000 [size=32]
>>> 	Memory at f1200000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=16K]
>>> 	Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3
>>> 	Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable+ 64bit+
>>> 	Capabilities: [70] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=64 Masked-
>>> 	Capabilities: [a0] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
>>> 	Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
>>> 	Capabilities: [140] Device Serial Number 00-1b-21-ff-ff-4a-fe-54
>>> 	Capabilities: [150] Alternative Routing-ID Interpretation (ARI)
>>> 	Capabilities: [160] Single Root I/O Virtualization (SR-IOV)
>>> 	Kernel driver in use: ixgbe
>>> 	Kernel modules: ixgbe
>>>
>>>
>> Adding Don Skidmore and Alex Duyck...
> This is probably the result of ATR and the load balancer on the system. 
> What is likely happening is that the netperf process is getting moved
> from CPU to CPU, and this is causing the transmit queue to change.  Once
> this happens the ATR will cause the receive queue to change in order to
> follow the transmitting process.
> 
> One thing you might try is using the "-T" option in netperf to see if
> the behaviour occurs if the process is bound to a specific CPU.  Another
> thing you might try would be to disable ATR by enabling ntuple.  You
> should be able to do that with  "ethtool -K eth5 ntuple on".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
> --

We could consider using sk_tx_queue_get(sk) in select_queue or better
yet use XPS and initialize it at sw init time. I think this would work
nicely and finally remove the select_queue() logic I just haven't got
to it yet. Hoping to get there the next few weeks.

.John

  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-17 16:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-17  9:06 [BUG] ixgbe: something wrong with queue selection ? Eric Dumazet
2012-04-17  9:16 ` Jeff Kirsher
2012-04-17 16:01   ` Alexander Duyck
2012-04-17 16:38     ` John Fastabend [this message]
2012-04-17 17:07       ` Ben Hutchings
2012-04-17 16:46     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-17 21:38       ` TSO not 10G friendly if peer is close enough Eric Dumazet
2012-04-17 21:47         ` David Miller
2012-04-18  3:00           ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-18 15:49         ` [PATCH net-next] tcp: avoid expensive pskb_expand_head() calls Eric Dumazet
     [not found]           ` <4F8EF317.10504@hp.com>
2012-04-18 17:16             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-18 17:30               ` Rick Jones
2012-04-18 17:40                 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-18 18:40           ` Neal Cardwell
2012-04-18 19:18             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-18 19:51               ` [PATCH v2 " Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 11:10                 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2012-04-19 11:30                   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 11:40                     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 11:57                       ` Ilpo Järvinen
2012-04-19 12:44                         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-20 12:27                           ` Ilpo Järvinen
2012-04-19 13:18                     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 13:52                       ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 14:10                         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 17:20                           ` Rick Jones
2012-04-19 17:25                             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 17:48                               ` Rick Jones
2012-04-19 18:00                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-19 18:05                                   ` Rick Jones
2012-04-18 19:41           ` [PATCH " Vijay Subramanian
2012-04-18 19:49             ` Eric Dumazet

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=4F8D9C91.5010001@intel.com \
    --to=john.r.fastabend@intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.h.duyck@intel.com \
    --cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregory.v.rose@intel.com \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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.