public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, "Skidmore,
	Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
	Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@intel.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@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 18:46:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1334681204.2472.41.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F8D93E1.9090000@intel.com>

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 09:01 -0700, 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".

I used taskset 1 netperf, to force netperf running on cpu0.

Problem is incoming ACKs seem to be spreaded, so TCP stack might run on
all cpus.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-04-17 16:46 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
2012-04-17 17:07       ` Ben Hutchings
2012-04-17 16:46     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
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=1334681204.2472.41.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexander.h.duyck@intel.com \
    --cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
    --cc=gregory.v.rose@intel.com \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=john.r.fastabend@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox