From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
To: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Horrid balance-rr bonding udp throughput
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:28:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8294df6-27f8-2385-9047-73f4aaab0c16@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f08f174-b087-32b7-91dd-ca72db50bd04@redhat.com>
On 2017-04-10 2:50 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On 2017-04-08 7:33 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> I'm digging into some bug reports covering performance issues with
>> balance-rr, and discovered something even worse than the reporter. My
>> test setup has a pair of NICs, one e1000e, one e1000 (but dual e1000e
>> seems the same). When I do a test run in LNST with bonding mode
>> balance-rr and either miimon or arpmon, the throughput of the
>> UDP_STREAM netperf test is absolutely horrible:
>>
>> TCP: 941.19 +-0.88 mbits/sec
>> UDP: 45.42 +-4.59 mbits/sec
>>
>> I figured I'd try LNST's packet capture mode, so exact same test, add
>> the -p flag and I get:
>>
>> TCP: 941.21 +-0.82 mbits/sec
>> UDP: 961.54 +-0.01 mbits/sec
>>
>> Uh. What? So yeah. I can't capture the traffic in the bad case, but I
>> guess that gives some potential insight into what's not happening
>> correctly in either the bonding driver or the NIC drivers... More
>> digging forthcoming, but first I have a flooded basement to deal with,
>> so if in the interim, anyone has some insight, I'd be happy to hear
>> it. :)
>
> Okay, ignore the bit about bonding, I should have eliminated the bond
> from the picture entirely. I think the traffic simply ended up on the
> e1000 on the non-capture test and on the e1000e for the capture test, as
> those numbers match perfectly with straight NIC to NIC testing, no bond
> involved. That said, really odd that the e1000 is so severely crippled
> for UDP, while TCP is still respectable. Not sure if I have a flaky NIC
> or what...
>
> For reference, e1000 to e1000e netperf:
>
> TCP_STREAM: Measured rate was 849.95 +-1.32 mbits/sec
> UDP_STREAM: Measured rate was 44.73 +-5.73 mbits/sec
The rabbit hole went even deeper. The actual problem was with the ITE
8893 PCIe bridge in the host not properly exposing capabilities, which
required a pci quirk identical to that of the ITE 8892 to work around.
With that in place, throughput on this venerable old e1000 goes back up
to a reasonable 900 mbits/sec, give or take.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-11 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-08 23:33 Horrid balance-rr bonding udp throughput Jarod Wilson
2017-04-10 18:50 ` Jarod Wilson
2017-04-10 19:11 ` Ben Greear
2017-04-10 19:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-04-11 14:28 ` Jarod Wilson [this message]
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=f8294df6-27f8-2385-9047-73f4aaab0c16@redhat.com \
--to=jarod@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).