[PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Qin Chuanyu]

we could xmit directly instead of going through softirq to gain 
throughput and lantency improved.
test model: VM-Host-Host just do transmit. with vhost thread and nic
interrupt bind cpu1. netperf do throuhput test and qperf do lantency test.
Host OS: suse11sp3, Guest OS: suse11sp3

latency result(us):
packet_len 64 256 512 1460
old(UDP)   44  47  48   66
new(UDP)   38  41  42   66

old(TCP)   52  55  70  117
new(TCP)   45  48  61  114

throughput result(Gbit/s):
packet_len   64   512   1024   1460
old(UDP)   0.42  2.02   3.75   4.68
new(UDP)   0.45  2.14   3.77   5.06

TCP due to the latency, client couldn't send packet big enough
to get benefit from TSO of nic, so the result show it will send
more packet per sencond but get lower throughput.

Eric mentioned that it would has problem with cgroup, but the patch
had been sent by Herbert Xu.
patch_id f845172531fb7410c7fb7780b1a6e51ee6df7d52

Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>
---
  drivers/net/tun.c |    4 +++-
  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct 
*tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
  	skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);

  	rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
-	netif_rx_ni(skb);
+	rcu_read_lock_bh();
+	netif_receive_skb(skb);
+	rcu_read_unlock_bh();

  	tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
  	tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes += len;
-- 
1.7.3.1.msysgit.0

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Eric Dumazet]

On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 22:25 +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> we could xmit directly instead of going through softirq to gain 
> throughput and lantency improved.
> test model: VM-Host-Host just do transmit. with vhost thread and nic
> interrupt bind cpu1. netperf do throuhput test and qperf do lantency test.
> Host OS: suse11sp3, Guest OS: suse11sp3
> 
> latency result(us):
> packet_len 64 256 512 1460
> old(UDP)   44  47  48   66
> new(UDP)   38  41  42   66
> 
> old(TCP)   52  55  70  117
> new(TCP)   45  48  61  114
> 
> throughput result(Gbit/s):
> packet_len   64   512   1024   1460
> old(UDP)   0.42  2.02   3.75   4.68
> new(UDP)   0.45  2.14   3.77   5.06
> 
> TCP due to the latency, client couldn't send packet big enough
> to get benefit from TSO of nic, so the result show it will send
> more packet per sencond but get lower throughput.
> 
> Eric mentioned that it would has problem with cgroup, but the patch
> had been sent by Herbert Xu.
> patch_id f845172531fb7410c7fb7780b1a6e51ee6df7d52
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/tun.c |    4 +++-
>   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct 
> *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>   	skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);
> 
>   	rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
> -	netif_rx_ni(skb);
> +	rcu_read_lock_bh();
> +	netif_receive_skb(skb);
> +	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> 
>   	tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
>   	tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes += len;

I already said this patch is not good :

rcu_read_lock_bh() makes no sense here.

What is really needed is local_bh_disable();

Herbert patch ( http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52963/ ) had a much
cleaner form.

Just use it, CC him, credit him, please ?

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:24:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 22:25 +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> > we could xmit directly instead of going through softirq to gain 
> > throughput and lantency improved.
> > test model: VM-Host-Host just do transmit. with vhost thread and nic
> > interrupt bind cpu1. netperf do throuhput test and qperf do lantency test.
> > Host OS: suse11sp3, Guest OS: suse11sp3
> > 
> > latency result(us):
> > packet_len 64 256 512 1460
> > old(UDP)   44  47  48   66
> > new(UDP)   38  41  42   66
> > 
> > old(TCP)   52  55  70  117
> > new(TCP)   45  48  61  114
> > 
> > throughput result(Gbit/s):
> > packet_len   64   512   1024   1460
> > old(UDP)   0.42  2.02   3.75   4.68
> > new(UDP)   0.45  2.14   3.77   5.06
> > 
> > TCP due to the latency, client couldn't send packet big enough
> > to get benefit from TSO of nic, so the result show it will send
> > more packet per sencond but get lower throughput.
> > 
> > Eric mentioned that it would has problem with cgroup, but the patch
> > had been sent by Herbert Xu.
> > patch_id f845172531fb7410c7fb7780b1a6e51ee6df7d52
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/tun.c |    4 +++-
> >   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > @@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct 
> > *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
> >   	skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);
> > 
> >   	rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
> > -	netif_rx_ni(skb);
> > +	rcu_read_lock_bh();
> > +	netif_receive_skb(skb);
> > +	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> > 
> >   	tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
> >   	tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes += len;
> 
> I already said this patch is not good :
> 
> rcu_read_lock_bh() makes no sense here.
> 
> What is really needed is local_bh_disable();
> 
> Herbert patch ( http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52963/ ) had a much
> cleaner form.
> 
> Just use it, CC him, credit him, please ?
> 

But not before making sure (testing) that patch does not break the
cgroups classifier please.

-- 
MST

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Jason Wang]

On 02/11/2014 10:25 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> we could xmit directly instead of going through softirq to gain
> throughput and lantency improved.
> test model: VM-Host-Host just do transmit. with vhost thread and nic
> interrupt bind cpu1. netperf do throuhput test and qperf do lantency
> test.
> Host OS: suse11sp3, Guest OS: suse11sp3
>
> latency result(us):
> packet_len 64 256 512 1460
> old(UDP)   44  47  48   66
> new(UDP)   38  41  42   66
>
> old(TCP)   52  55  70  117
> new(TCP)   45  48  61  114
>
> throughput result(Gbit/s):
> packet_len   64   512   1024   1460
> old(UDP)   0.42  2.02   3.75   4.68
> new(UDP)   0.45  2.14   3.77   5.06
>
> TCP due to the latency, client couldn't send packet big enough
> to get benefit from TSO of nic, so the result show it will send
> more packet per sencond but get lower throughput.
>
> Eric mentioned that it would has problem with cgroup, but the patch
> had been sent by Herbert Xu.
> patch_id f845172531fb7410c7fb7780b1a6e51ee6df7d52
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>
> ---

A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
>  drivers/net/tun.c |    4 +++-
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct
> *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>      skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);
>
>      rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
> -    netif_rx_ni(skb);
> +    rcu_read_lock_bh();
> +    netif_receive_skb(skb);
> +    rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>
>      tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
>      tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes += len;

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:28 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:

> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?

Not really, as net devices are serviced by softirq handler.

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Jason Wang]

On 02/12/2014 01:47 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:28 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
> Not really, as net devices are serviced by softirq handler.
>
>

Yes, then the issue is tun could be starved by other net devices.

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:50 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 01:47 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:28 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> >> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
> > Not really, as net devices are serviced by softirq handler.
> >
> >
> 
> Yes, then the issue is tun could be starved by other net devices.

How this patch changes anything to this 'problem' ?

netif_rx_ni() can only be called if your process is not preempted by
other high prio tasks/softirqs.

If this process is scheduled on a cpu, then disabling bh to process
_one_ packet wont fundamentally change dynamic of the system.

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Jason Wang]

On 02/12/2014 02:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:50 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 02/12/2014 01:47 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 13:28 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
>>> Not really, as net devices are serviced by softirq handler.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, then the issue is tun could be starved by other net devices.
> How this patch changes anything to this 'problem' ?
>
> netif_rx_ni() can only be called if your process is not preempted by
> other high prio tasks/softirqs.
>
> If this process is scheduled on a cpu, then disabling bh to process
> _one_ packet wont fundamentally change dynamic of the system.
>

After looking at the code for a while, I agree it won't be a great change.

Thanks

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Qin Chuanyu]

On 2014/2/12 13:28, Jason Wang wrote:

> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
tap xmit skb use thread context，the poll func of physical nic driver
could be called in softirq context without change.

I had test it by binding vhost thread and physic nic interrupt on the 
same vcpu, use netperf xmit udp, test model is VM1-Host1-Host2.

if only VM1 xmit skb, the top show as below :
Cpu1 :0.0%us, 95.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id,  0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 5.0%si,  0.0%st

then use host2 xmit skb to VM1, the top show as below :
Cpu1 :0.0%us, 41.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id,  0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 59.0%si, 0.0%st

so I think there is no problem with this change.

>>   drivers/net/tun.c |    4 +++-
>>   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index 44c4db8..90b4e58 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -1184,7 +1184,9 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct
>> *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>>       skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0);
>>
>>       rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
>> -    netif_rx_ni(skb);
>> +    rcu_read_lock_bh();
>> +    netif_receive_skb(skb);
>> +    rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>>
>>       tun->dev->stats.rx_packets++;
>>       tun->dev->stats.rx_bytes += len;
>
>
> .
>

Re: [PATCH] tun: use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx_ni

[Jason Wang]

On 02/12/2014 02:46 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> On 2014/2/12 13:28, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>> A question: without NAPI weight, could this starve other net devices?
> tap xmit skb use thread context，the poll func of physical nic driver
> could be called in softirq context without change.
>
> I had test it by binding vhost thread and physic nic interrupt on the
> same vcpu, use netperf xmit udp, test model is VM1-Host1-Host2.
>
> if only VM1 xmit skb, the top show as below :
> Cpu1 :0.0%us, 95.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id,  0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 5.0%si,  0.0%st
>
> then use host2 xmit skb to VM1, the top show as below :
> Cpu1 :0.0%us, 41.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id,  0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 59.0%si, 0.0%st
>
> so I think there is no problem with this change.

Yes, I realize it was ok after Eric's comment.

Thanks