Re: RFT: virtio_net: limit xmit polling

Re: RFT: virtio_net: limit xmit polling

[Roopa Prabhu]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --]

Michael,  

I am testing this too.
 I have finished one round of testing. But am running it again just to
confirm.
This time I will see if I can collect some exit stats too. Will post results
sometime this weekend.
I am just doing TCP_STREAM and TCP_MAERTS from guest to remote host.

Thanks,
Roopa


On 6/21/11 8:23 AM, "Tom Lendacky" <tahm@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 19, 2011 05:27:00 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > OK, different people seem to test different trees.  In the hope to get
>> > everyone on the same page, I created several variants of this patch so
>> > they can be compared. Whoever's interested, please check out the
>> > following, and tell me how these compare:
> 
> I'm in the process of testing these patches.  Base and v0 are complete
> and v1 is near complete with v2 to follow.  I'm testing with a variety
> of TCP_RR and TCP_STREAM/TCP_MAERTS tests involving local guest-to-guest
> tests and remote host-to-guest tests.  I'll post the results in the next
> day or two when the tests finish.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
>> >
>> > kernel:
>> >
>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git
>> >
>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/base - this is net-next baseline to test
>> > against virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v0 - fixes checks on out of capacity
>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v1 - previous revision of the patch
>> >               this does xmit,free,xmit,2*free,free
>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v2 - new revision of the patch
>> >               this does free,xmit,2*free,free
>> >
>> > There's also this on top:
>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v3 -> don't delay avail index update
>> > I don't think it's important to test this one, yet
>> >
>> > Userspace to use: event index work is not yet merged upstream
>> > so the revision to use is still this:
>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/qemu-kvm.git
>> > virtio-net-event-idx-v3
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2700 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: RFT: virtio_net: limit xmit polling

[Roopa Prabhu]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3019 bytes --]


Here are the results I am getting with a Cisco 10G VIC adapter.
All tests are from the guest to an external host.

virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/base:
TCP_STREAM: 8089Mbps
TCP_MAERTS: 9334Mbps

virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v0
TCP_STREAM: 8004Mbps
TCP_MAERTS: 9338Mbps

virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v1
TCP_STREAM: 8028Mbps
TCP_MAERTS: 9339Mbps

virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v2
TCP_STREAM: 8045Mbps
TCP_MAERTS: 9337Mbps

For the TCP_STREAM tests I don¹t get consistent results.
Every run gives me slightly different results. But its always between
7900Mbps to 8100Mbps.
But I also see this with the base kernel so its not related to these
patches. 

Thanks,
Roopa

On 6/24/11 5:50 AM, "Roopa Prabhu" <roprabhu@cisco.com> wrote:

> Michael,  
> 
> I am testing this too.
>  I have finished one round of testing. But am running it again just to
> confirm.
> This time I will see if I can collect some exit stats too. Will post results
> sometime this weekend.
> I am just doing TCP_STREAM and TCP_MAERTS from guest to remote host.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roopa
> 
> 
> On 6/21/11 8:23 AM, "Tom Lendacky" <tahm@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday, June 19, 2011 05:27:00 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> > OK, different people seem to test different trees.  In the hope to get
>>> > everyone on the same page, I created several variants of this patch so
>>> > they can be compared. Whoever's interested, please check out the
>>> > following, and tell me how these compare:
>> 
>> I'm in the process of testing these patches.  Base and v0 are complete
>> and v1 is near complete with v2 to follow.  I'm testing with a variety
>> of TCP_RR and TCP_STREAM/TCP_MAERTS tests involving local guest-to-guest
>> tests and remote host-to-guest tests.  I'll post the results in the next
>> day or two when the tests finish.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>> 
>>> >
>>> > kernel:
>>> >
>>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git
>>> >
>>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/base - this is net-next baseline to test
>>> > against virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v0 - fixes checks on out of capacity
>>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v1 - previous revision of the patch
>>> >               this does xmit,free,xmit,2*free,free
>>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v2 - new revision of the patch
>>> >               this does free,xmit,2*free,free
>>> >
>>> > There's also this on top:
>>> > virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v3 -> don't delay avail index update
>>> > I don't think it's important to test this one, yet
>>> >
>>> > Userspace to use: event index work is not yet merged upstream
>>> > so the revision to use is still this:
>>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/qemu-kvm.git
>>> > virtio-net-event-idx-v3
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4335 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: RFT: virtio_net: limit xmit polling

[Tom Lendacky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 6384 bytes --]

On Sunday, June 19, 2011 05:27:00 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> OK, different people seem to test different trees.  In the hope to get
> everyone on the same page, I created several variants of this patch so
> they can be compared. Whoever's interested, please check out the
> following, and tell me how these compare:
> 
> kernel:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git
> 
> virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/base - this is net-next baseline to test
> against virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v0 - fixes checks on out of capacity
> virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v1 - previous revision of the patch
> 		this does xmit,free,xmit,2*free,free
> virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v2 - new revision of the patch
> 		this does free,xmit,2*free,free
> 

Here's a summary of the results.  I've also attached an ODS format spreadsheet
(30 KB in size) that might be easier to analyze and also has some pinned VM
results data.  I broke the tests down into a local guest-to-guest scenario
and a remote host-to-guest scenario.

Within the local guest-to-guest scenario I ran:
  - TCP_RR tests using two different messsage sizes and four different
    instance counts among 1 pair of VMs and 2 pairs of VMs.
  - TCP_STREAM tests using four different message sizes and two different
    instance counts among 1 pair of VMs and 2 pairs of VMs.

Within the remote host-to-guest scenario I ran:
  - TCP_RR tests using two different messsage sizes and four different
    instance counts to 1 VM and 4 VMs.
  - TCP_STREAM and TCP_MAERTS tests using four different message sizes and
    two different instance counts to 1 VM and 4 VMs.
over a 10GbE link.

*** Local Guest-to-Guest ***

Here's the local guest-to-guest summary for 1 VM pair doing TCP_RR with
256/256 request/response message size in transactions per second:

Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		 8,151.56	 8,460.72	 8,439.16	 9,990.37
25		48,761.74	51,032.62	51,103.25	49,533.52
50		55,687.38	55,974.18	56,854.10	54,888.65
100		58,255.06	58,255.86	60,380.90	59,308.36

Here's the local guest-to-guest summary for 2 VM pairs doing TCP_RR with
256/256 request/response message size in transactions per second:

Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		18,758.48	19,112.50	18,597.07	19,252.04
25		80,500.50	78,801.78	80,590.68	78,782.07
50		80,594.20	77,985.44	80,431.72	77,246.90
100		82,023.23	81,325.96	81,303.32	81,727.54

Here's the local guest-to-guest summary for 1 VM pair doing TCP_STREAM with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		   961.78	 1,115.92	   794.02	   740.37
4		 2,498.33	 2,541.82	 2,441.60	 2,308.26

1K:					
1		 3,476.61	 3,522.02	 2,170.86	 1,395.57
4		 6,344.30	 7,056.57	 7,275.16	 7,174.09

4K:					
1		 9,213.57	10,647.44	 9,883.42	 9,007.29
4		11,070.66	11,300.37	11,001.02	12,103.72

16K:
1		12,065.94	 9,437.78	11,710.60	 6,989.93
4		12,755.28	13,050.78	12,518.06	13,227.33

Here's the local guest-to-guest summary for 2 VM pairs doing TCP_STREAM with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		 2,434.98	 2,403.23	 2,308.69	 2,261.35
4		 5,973.82	 5,729.48	 5,956.76	 5,831.86

1K:
1		 5,305.99	 5,148.72	 4,960.67	 5,067.76
4		10,628.38	10,649.49	10,098.90	10,380.09

4K:
1		11,577.03	10,710.33	11,700.53	10,304.09
4		14,580.66	14,881.38	14,551.17	15,053.02

16K:
1		16,801.46	16,072.50	15,773.78	15,835.66
4		17,194.00	17,294.02	17,319.78	17,121.09


*** Remote Host-to-Guest ***

Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 1 VM doing TCP_RR with
256/256 request/response message size in transactions per second:

Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		 9,732.99	10,307.98	10,529.82	 8,889.28
25		43,976.18	49,480.50	46,536.66	45,682.38
50		63,031.33	67,127.15	60,073.34	65,748.62
100		64,778.43	65,338.07	66,774.12	69,391.22

Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 4 VMs doing TCP_RR with
256/256 request/response message size in transactions per second:

Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		 39,270.42	 38,253.60	 39,353.10	 39,566.33
25		207,120.91	207,964.50	211,539.70	213,882.21
50		218,801.54	221,490.56	220,529.48	223,594.25
100		218,432.62	215,061.44	222,011.61	223,480.47

Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 1 VM doing TCP_STREAM with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		2,274.74	2,220.38	2,245.26	2,212.30
4		5,689.66	5,953.86	5,984.80	5,827.94

1K:
1		7,804.38	7,236.29	6,716.58	7,485.09
4		7,722.42	8,070.38	7,700.45	7,856.76

4K:
1		8,976.14	9,026.77	9,147.32	9,095.58
4		7,532.25	7,410.80	7,683.81	7,524.94

16K:
1		8,991.61	9,045.10	9,124.58	9,238.34
4		7,406.10	7,626.81	7,711.62	7,345.37

Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 1 VM doing TCP_MAERTS with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		1,165.69	1,181.92	1,152.20	1,104.68
4		2,580.46	2,545.22	2,436.30	2,601.74

1K:
1		2,393.34	2,457.22	2,128.86	2,258.92
4		7,152.57	7,606.60	8,004.64	7,576.85

4K:
1		9,258.93	8,505.06	9,309.78	9,215.05
4		9,374.20	9,363.48	9,372.53	9,352.00

16K:
1		9,244.70	9,287.72	9,298.60	9,322.28
4		9,380.02	9,347.50	9,377.46	9,372.98

Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 4 VMs doing TCP_STREAM with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		9,392.37	9,390.74	9,395.58	9,392.46
4		9,394.24	9,394.46	9,395.42	9,394.05

1K:
1		9,396.34	9,397.46	9,396.64	9,443.26
4		9,397.14	9,402.25	9,398.67	9,391.09

4K:
1		9,397.16	9,398.07	9,397.30	9,396.33
4		9,395.64	9,400.25	9,397.54	9,397.75

16K:
1		9,396.58	9,397.01	9,397.58	9,397.70
4		9,399.15	9,400.02	9,399.66	9,400.16


Here's the remote host-to-guest summary for 4 VMs doing TCP_MAERTS with
256, 1K, 4K and 16K message size in Mbps:

256:
Instances	Base		V0		V1		V2
1		5,048.66	5,007.26	5,074.98	4,974.86
4		9,217.23	9,245.14	9,263.97	9,294.23

1K:
1		9,378.32	9,387.12	9,386.21	9,361.55
4		9,384.42	9,384.02	9,385.50	9,385.55

4K:
1		9,391.10	9,390.28	9,389.70	9,391.02
4		9,384.38	9,383.39	9,384.74	9,384.19

16K:
1		9,390.77	9,389.62	9,388.07	9,388.19
4		9,381.86	9,382.37	9,385.54	9,383.88


Tom

> There's also this on top:
> virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v3 -> don't delay avail index update
> I don't think it's important to test this one, yet
> 
> Userspace to use: event index work is not yet merged upstream
> so the revision to use is still this:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/qemu-kvm.git
> virtio-net-event-idx-v3

[-- Attachment #2: MST-Request.ods --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet, Size: 31012 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: RFT: virtio_net: limit xmit polling

[Roopa Prabhu]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1756 bytes --]




On 6/29/11 1:42 AM, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> >roprabhu, Tom,
>> >
>> >Thanks very much for the testing. So on the first glance
>> >one seems to see a significant performance gain in V0 here,
>> >and a slightly less significant in V2, with V1
>> >being worse than base. But I'm afraid that's not the
>> >whole story, and we'll need to work some more to
>> >know what really goes on, please see below.
>> >
>> >
>> >Some comments on the results: I found out that V0 because of mistake
>> >on my part was actually almost identical to base.
>> >I pushed out virtio-net-limit-xmit-polling/v1a instead that
>> >actually does what I intended to check. However,
>> >the fact we get such a huge distribution in the results by Tom
>> >most likely means that the noise factor is very large.
>> >
>> >
>> >From my experience one way to get stable results is to
>> >divide the throughput by the host CPU utilization
>> >(measured by something like mpstat).
>> >Sometimes throughput doesn't increase (e.g. guest-host)
>> >by CPU utilization does decrease. So it's interesting.
>> >
>> >
>> >Another issue is that we are trying to improve the latency
>> >of a busy queue here. However STREAM/MAERTS tests ignore the latency
>> >(more or less) while TCP_RR by default runs a single packet per queue.
>> >Without arguing about whether these are practically interesting
>> >workloads, these results are thus unlikely to be significantly affected
>> >by the optimization in question.
>> >
>> >What we are interested in, thus, is either TCP_RR with a -b flag
>> >(configure with  --enable-burst) or multiple concurrent
>> >TCP_RRs.
> 
> ok sounds good. I am testing your v1a patch. Will try to get some results out
> end of this week. Thanks.
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2328 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization