From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seth Forshee Subject: Re: Performance regression with virtio_net Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:14:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20170727211430.viki2jcxbzk2u62c@ubuntu-hedt> References: <20170727170942.ub24lwgrl3x2outp@ubuntu-hedt> <20170727233244-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jason Wang , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:38785 "EHLO mail-it0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbdG0VOc (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:14:32 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id h199so88748986ith.1 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170727233244-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:38:52PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:09:42PM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > I'm seeing a performance regression with virtio_net that looks to have > > started in 4.12-rc1. I only see it in one context though, downloading > > snap packages from the Ubuntu snap store. For example: > > > > https://api.snapcraft.io/api/v1/snaps/download/b8X2psL1ryVrPt5WEmpYiqfr5emixTd7_1797.snap > > > > which redirects to Internap's CDN. Normally this downloads in a few > > seconds at ~10 MB/s, but with 4.12 and 4.13 it takes minutes with a rate > > of ~150 KB/s. Everything else I've tried downloads as normal speeds. > > So just wget that URL should be enough? Yes. Note that sometimes it starts out faster then slows down. > > I bisected this to 680557cf79f8 "virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer > > handling". If I revert this on top of 4.13-rc2 (along with other changes > > needed to successfully revert it) speeds return to normal. > > > > Thanks, > > Seth > > > Interesting. A more likely suspect would be > e377fcc8486d40867c6c217077ad0fa40977e060 - could you please try > reverting that one instead? I tried it, and I still get slow download speeds. I did test at 680557cf79f82623e2c4fd42733077d60a843513 during the bisect so I'm reasonably confident that this is the one where things went bad. > Also, could you please look at mergeable_rx_buffer_size in sysfs with > and without the change? In all cases (stock 4.13-rc2, 680557cf79f8 reverted, and e377fcc8486d reverted) mergeable_rx_buffer_size was 1536. Thanks, Seth