Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: add GRO support via gro_cells

Alexander Lobakin
2020-04-06T21:33:18Z

On Mon, 04/06/2020 at 13:16 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/6/2020 12:11 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > 06.04.2020, 20:57, "Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>:
> > > On 4/6/2020 10:34 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > > 06.04.2020, 18:21, "Alexander Lobakin" <bloodyreaper@yandex.ru>:
> > > > > 06.04.2020, 17:48, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 01:59:10PM +0300, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > > > > > gro_cells lib is used by different encapsulating netdevices, such as
> > > > > > > geneve, macsec, vxlan etc. to speed up decapsulated traffic processing.
> > > > > > > CPU tag is a sort of "encapsulation", and we can use the same mechs to
> > > > > > > greatly improve overall DSA performance.
> > > > > > > skbs are passed to the GRO layer after removing CPU tags, so we don't
> > > > > > > need any new packet offload types as it was firstly proposed by me in
> > > > > > > the first GRO-over-DSA variant [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The size of struct gro_cells is sizeof(void *), so hot struct
> > > > > > > dsa_slave_priv becomes only 4/8 bytes bigger, and all critical fields
> > > > > > > remain in one 32-byte cacheline.
> > > > > > > The other positive side effect is that drivers for network devices
> > > > > > > that can be shipped as CPU ports of DSA-driven switches can now use
> > > > > > > napi_gro_frags() to pass skbs to kernel. Packets built that way are
> > > > > > > completely non-linear and are likely being dropped without GRO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This was tested on to-be-mainlined-soon Ethernet driver that uses
> > > > > > > napi_gro_frags(), and the overall performance was on par with the
> > > > > > > variant from [1], sometimes even better due to minimal overhead.
> > > > > > > net.core.gro_normal_batch tuning may help to push it to the limit
> > > > > > > on particular setups and platforms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20191230143028.27313-1-alobakin@dlink.ru/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Andrew!
> > > > >
> > > > > > net-next is closed at the moment. So you should of posted this with an
> > > > > > RFC prefix.
> > > > >
> > > > > I saw that it's closed, but didn't knew about "RFC" tags for that period,
> > > > > sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The implementation looks nice and simple. But it would be nice to have
> > > > > > some performance figures.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll do, sure. I think I'll collect the stats with various main receiving
> > > > > functions in Ethernet driver (napi_gro_frags(), napi_gro_receive(),
> > > > > netif_receive_skb(), netif_receive_skb_list()), and with and without this
> > > > > patch to make them as complete as possible.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so here we go.
> > > >
> > > > My device is 1.2 GHz 4-core MIPS32 R2. Ethernet controller representing
> > > > the CPU port is capable of S/G, fraglists S/G, TSO4/6 and GSO UDP L4.
> > > > Tests are performed through simple IPoE VLAN NAT forwarding setup
> > > > (port0 <-> port1.218) with iperf3 in TCP mode.
> > > > net.core.gro_normal_batch is always set to 16 as that value seems to be
> > > > the most effective for that particular hardware and drivers.
> > > >
> > > > Packet counters on eth0 are the real numbers of ongoing frames. Counters
> > > > on portX are pure-software and are updated inside networking stack.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > netif_receive_skb() in Eth driver, no patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 9.00 GBytes 644 Mbits/sec 413 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 8.99 GBytes 644 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:7097731 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:7097702 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:426050 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:6671829 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:6671681 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > > TX packets:425862 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:6671677 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:425851 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > netif_receive_skb_list() in Eth driver, no patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 9.48 GBytes 679 Mbits/sec 129 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 9.48 GBytes 679 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:7448098 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:7448073 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:416115 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:7032121 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:7031983 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:415941 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:7031978 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:415930 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > napi_gro_receive() in Eth driver, no patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 10.0 GBytes 718 Mbits/sec 107 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 10.0 GBytes 718 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:7868281 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:7868267 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:429082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:7439343 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:7439199 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:428913 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:7439195 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:428902 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > =====================================================================
> > > >
> > > > netif_receive_skb() in Eth driver + patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 12.2 GBytes 870 Mbits/sec 2267 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 12.2 GBytes 870 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:9474792 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:9474777 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:455200 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:353288 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:9019592 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:455035 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:353144 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:455024 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > netif_receive_skb_list() in Eth driver + patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 11.6 GBytes 827 Mbits/sec 2224 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 11.5 GBytes 827 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:8981651 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:898187 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:436159 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:335665 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:8545492 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:436071 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:335593 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:436065 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > napi_gro_receive() in Eth driver + patch:
> > > >
> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.01 sec 11.8 GBytes 855 Mbits/sec 122 sender
> > > > [ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 11.8 GBytes 855 Mbits/sec receiver
> > > >
> > > > eth0
> > > > RX packets:9292214 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:9292190 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port0
> > > > RX packets:438516 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:347236 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1
> > > > RX packets:8853698 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:438331 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > port1.218
> > > > RX packets:347082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > > TX packets:438320 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > The main goal is achieved: we have about 100-200 Mbps of performance
> > > > boost while in-stack skbs are greatly reduced from ~8-9 millions to
> > > > ~350000 (compare port0 TX and port1 RX without patch and with it).
> > >
> > > And the number of TCP retries is also lower, which likely means that we
> > > are making better use of the flow control built into the hardware/driver
> > > here?
> > >
> > > BTW do you know why you have so many retries though? It sounds like your
> > > flow control is missing a few edge cases, or that you have an incorrect
> > > configuration of your TX admission queue.
> >
> > Well, I have the same question TBH. All these ~1.5 years that I'm
> > working on these switches I have pretty chaotic number of TCP
> > retransmissions each time I change something in the code. They are
> > less likely to happen when the average CPU load is lower, but ~100
> > is the best result I ever got.
> > Seems like I should stop trying to push software throughput to
> > the max for a while and pay more attention to this and to hardware
> > configuration instead and check if I miss something :)
>
> I have had to debug such a problem on some of our systems recently and
> it came down to being a couple of things for those systems:
>
> - as a receiver, we could create fast re-transmissions on the sender
> side because of packet loss which was because the switch is able to push
> packets faster than the DSA master being able to write them to DRAM. One
> way to work around this is to clock the Ethernet MAC higher, at the cost
> of power consumption.
>
> - as a sender, we could have fast re-transmissions when we were
> ourselves a "fast" CPU (1.7GHz or higher for Gigabit throughput), that
> part is still being root caused, but I think it comes down to flow
> control being incorrectly set-up in hardware, which means you could lose
> packets between your ndo_start_xmit() and not having the software TXQ
> assert XON/XOFF properly
>
> So in both cases, packet loss is responsible for those fast
> re-transmissions, but they are barely observable (case #1 was, since the
> switch port counter did not match the Ethernet MAC MIB counters) since
> you have a black hole effect.

Thank you for so detailed response! I suppose there might be both of
these on my system, I'll have a look at this soon.