From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] rps: Receive Packet Steering
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1268773227.2932.34.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B9FC7F1.5010507@google.com>
Le mardi 16 mars 2010 à 11:03 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit :
> Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> This patch implements software receive side packet steering (RPS). RPS
> distributes the load of received packet processing across multiple CPUs.
>
> Problem statement: Protocol processing done in the NAPI context for received
> packets is serialized per device queue and becomes a bottleneck under high
> packet load. This substantially limits pps that can be achieved on a single
> queue NIC and provides no scaling with multiple cores.
>
> This solution queues packets early on in the receive path on the backlog queues
> of other CPUs. This allows protocol processing (e.g. IP and TCP) to be
> performed on packets in parallel. For each device (or each receive queue in
> a multi-queue device) a mask of CPUs is set to indicate the CPUs that can
> process packets. A CPU is selected on a per packet basis by hashing contents
> of the packet header (e.g. the TCP or UDP 4-tuple) and using the result to index
> into the CPU mask. The IPI mechanism is used to raise networking receive
> softirqs between CPUs. This effectively emulates in software what a multi-queue
> NIC can provide, but is generic requiring no device support.
>
> Many devices now provide a hash over the 4-tuple on a per packet basis
> (e.g. the Toeplitz hash). This patch allow drivers to set the HW reported hash
> in an skb field, and that value in turn is used to index into the RPS maps.
> Using the HW generated hash can avoid cache misses on the packet when
> steering it to a remote CPU.
>
> The CPU mask is set on a per device and per queue basis in the sysfs variable
> /sys/class/net/<device>/queues/rx-<n>/rps_cpus. This is a set of canonical
> bit maps for receive queues in the device (numbered by <n>). If a device
> does not support multi-queue, a single variable is used for the device (rx-0).
>
> Generally, we have found this technique increases pps capabilities of a single
> queue device with good CPU utilization. Optimal settings for the CPU mask
> seem to depend on architectures and cache hierarcy. Below are some results
> running 500 instances of netperf TCP_RR test with 1 byte req. and resp.
> Results show cumulative transaction rate and system CPU utilization.
>
> e1000e on 8 core Intel
> Without RPS: 108K tps at 33% CPU
> With RPS: 311K tps at 64% CPU
>
> forcedeth on 16 core AMD
> Without RPS: 156K tps at 15% CPU
> With RPS: 404K tps at 49% CPU
>
> bnx2x on 16 core AMD
> Without RPS 567K tps at 61% CPU (4 HW RX queues)
> Without RPS 738K tps at 96% CPU (8 HW RX queues)
> With RPS: 854K tps at 76% CPU (4 HW RX queues)
>
> Caveats:
> - The benefits of this patch are dependent on architecture and cache hierarchy.
> Tuning the masks to get best performance is probably necessary.
> - This patch adds overhead in the path for processing a single packet. In
> a lightly loaded server this overhead may eliminate the advantages of
> increased parallelism, and possibly cause some relative performance degradation.
> We have found that masks that are cache aware (share same caches with
> the interrupting CPU) mitigate much of this.
> - The RPS masks can be changed dynamically, however whenever the mask is changed
> this introduces the possibility of generating out of order packets. It's
> probably best not change the masks too frequently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
>
Well, I tested this on my dev machine, with a vlan over bonding setup,
tg3 and bnx2 drivers (mono queue), and all is good. UDP bench not
anymore using 100% of one cpu and dropping frames.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Thanks Herbert, this gives a very good fanout of network load on cpus,
this is a huge improvement, I cannot wait 2.6.35 :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-16 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-12 20:13 [PATCH v7] rps: Receive Packet Steering Tom Herbert
2010-03-12 21:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-12 23:08 ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-16 18:03 ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-16 21:00 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-03-16 21:13 ` David Miller
2010-03-17 1:54 ` Changli Gao
2010-03-17 7:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17 7:59 ` Changli Gao
2010-03-17 14:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17 15:01 ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-17 15:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17 23:50 ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-18 2:14 ` Changli Gao
2010-03-18 6:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18 6:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18 6:48 ` Changli Gao
2010-03-18 20:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18 21:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-17 4:26 ` David Miller
2010-03-12 22:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-12 22:32 ` David Miller
2010-03-12 22:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-12 22:33 ` David Miller
2010-03-12 23:05 ` Tom Herbert
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=1268773227.2932.34.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=therbert@google.com \
/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