Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

Jiri Pirko
2024-06-06T07:30:06Z

Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 04:20:48AM CEST, dave.taht@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:37 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
>> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:27:08PM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:52:52PM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> Thu, May 09, 2024 at 04:28:12PM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>> >> >> >On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:31:56PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> >> Thu, May 09, 2024 at 02:41:39PM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:46:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Add support for Byte Queue Limits (BQL).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Can we get more detail on the benefits you observe etc?
>> >> >> >> >Thanks!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> More info about the BQL in general is here:
>> >> >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/469652/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I know about BQL in general. We discussed BQL for virtio in the past
>> >> >> >mostly I got the feedback from net core maintainers that it likely
>> won't
>> >> >> >benefit virtio.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you have some link to that, or is it this thread:
>> >> >>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/21384cb5-99a6-7431-1039-b356521e1bc3@redhat.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >A quick search on lore turned up this, for example:
>> >> >
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/a11eee78-b2a1-3dbc-4821-b5f4bfaae819@gmail.com/
>> >>
>> >> Says:
>> >> "Note that NIC with many TX queues make BQL almost useless, only adding
>> extra
>> >> overhead."
>> >>
>> >> But virtio can have one tx queue, I guess that could be quite common
>> >> configuration in lot of deployments.
>> >
>> >Not sure we should worry about performance for these though.
>> >What I am saying is this should come with some benchmarking
>> >results.
>>
>> I did some measurements with VDPA, backed by ConnectX6dx NIC, single
>> queue pair:
>>
>> super_netperf 200 -H $ip -l 45 -t TCP_STREAM &
>> nice -n 20 netperf -H $ip -l 10 -t TCP_RR
>>
>> RR result with no bql:
>> 29.95
>> 32.74
>> 28.77
>>
>> RR result with bql:
>> 222.98
>> 159.81
>> 197.88
>>
>>
>>
>Yay! is that with pfifo_fast or fq_codel as the underlying qdisc?

pfifo_fast

>
>fq_codel, please?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> I don't see why virtio should be any different from other
>> >> >> drivers/devices that benefit from bql. HOL blocking is the same here
>> are
>> >> >> everywhere.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So I'm asking, what kind of benefit do you observe?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't have measurements at hand, will attach them to v2.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >MST
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>--
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast
>Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos