From: jonathan.davies@citrix.com (Jonathan Davies)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:38:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <552BC6D1.1060907@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZaVjFHh4UBnksGZS4waBr4jLdO8aJegyKvsU1-TvVt2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
On 13/04/15 11:56, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini
> <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 16:46 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I found a performance regression when running netperf -t TCP_MAERTS from
>>>> an external host to a Xen VM on ARM64: v3.19 and v4.0-rc4 running in the
>>>> virtual machine are 30% slower than v3.18.
>>>>
>>>> Through bisection I found that the perf regression is caused by the
>>>> prensence of the following commit in the guest kernel:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> commit 605ad7f184b60cfaacbc038aa6c55ee68dee3c89
>>>> Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>>> Date: Sun Dec 7 12:22:18 2014 -0800
>>>>
>>>> tcp: refine TSO autosizing
>
> [snip]
I recently discussed this issue on netdev in the following thread:
https://www.marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142738853820517
>>> This commit restored original TCP Small Queue behavior, which is the
>>> first step to fight bufferbloat.
>>>
>>> Some network drivers are known to be problematic because of a delayed TX
>>> completion.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Try to tweak /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_limit_output_bytes to see if it
>>> makes a difference ?
>>
>> A very big difference:
>>
>> echo 262144 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_limit_output_bytes
>> brings us much closer to the original performance, the slowdown is just
>> 8%
>>
>> echo 1048576 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_limit_output_bytes
>> fills the gap entirely, same performance as before "refine TSO
>> autosizing"
>>
>>
>> What would be the next step for here? Should I just document this as an
>> important performance tweaking step for Xen, or is there something else
>> we can do?
>
> Is the problem perhaps that netback/netfront delays TX completion?
> Would it be better to see if that can be addressed properly, so that
> the original purpose of the patch (fighting bufferbloat) can be
> achieved while not degrading performance for Xen? Or at least, so
> that people get decent perfomance out of the box without having to
> tweak TCP parameters?
I agree; reducing the completion latency should be the ultimate goal.
However, that won't be easy, so we need a work-around in the short term.
I don't like the idea of relying on documenting the recommendation to
change tcp_limit_output_bytes; too many people won't read this advice
and will expect the out-of-the-box defaults to be reasonable.
Following Eric's pointers to where a similar problem had been
experienced in wifi drivers, I came up with two proof-of-concept patches
that gave a similar performance gain without any changes to sysctl
parameters or core tcp/ip code. See
https://www.marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142746161307283.
I haven't yet received any feedback from the xen-netfront maintainers
about whether those ideas could be reasonably adopted.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-13 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-09 15:46 "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-09 16:36 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-09 17:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-13 10:56 ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2015-04-13 13:38 ` Jonathan Davies [this message]
2015-04-13 13:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 13:43 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 16:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:23 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:41 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:55 ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 18:19 ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 20:08 ` Rick Jones
2015-04-15 18:04 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 18:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 8:56 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 9:20 ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-04-16 10:01 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 12:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-20 11:03 ` George Dunlap
2015-06-02 9:52 ` Wei Liu
2015-06-02 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 9:22 ` David Laight
2015-04-16 10:57 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-15 17:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 17:58 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-04-15 18:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 4:20 ` Herbert Xu
2015-04-16 4:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 11:39 ` George Dunlap
2015-04-16 12:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-16 13:00 ` Tim Deegan
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=552BC6D1.1060907@citrix.com \
--to=jonathan.davies@citrix.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 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).