On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:43:03AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 18:09 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > Hi:
> > 
> > Thanks for the work and it looks very reasonable, some questions
> > below.

Yes I am happy to see the per-cpu work resurrected.
Some comments below.

> > On 03/23/2012 07:48 AM, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > Sorry for being late to submit this patch. I have spent lots of time
> > > trying to find the best approach. This effort is still going on...
> > >
> > > This patch is built against net-next tree.
> > >
> > > This is an experimental RFC patch. The purpose of this patch is to
> > > address KVM networking scalability and NUMA scheduling issue.
> > 
> > Need also test for non-NUMA machine, I see that you just choose the
> > cpu 
> > that initiates the work for non-numa machine which seems sub optimal.
> 
> Good suggestions. I don't have any non-numa systems. But KK run some
> tests on non-numa system. He could see around 20% performance gain for
> single VMs local host to guest. I hope we can run a full test on
> non-numa system.
> 
> On non-numa system, the same per vhost-cpu thread will be always picked
> up consistently for a particular vq since all cores are on same cpu
> socket. So there will be two per-cpu vhost threads handle TX/RX
> simultaneously.
> 
> > > The existing implementation of vhost creats a vhost thread
> > per-device
> > > (virtio_net) based. RX and TX work of a VMs per-device is handled by
> > > same vhost thread.
> > >
> > > One of the limitation of this implementation is with increasing the
> > > number VMs or the number of virtio-net interfces, more vhost threads
> > are
> > > created, it will consume more kernel resources, and induce more
> > threads
> > > context switches/scheduling overhead. We noticed that the KVM
> > network
> > > performance doesn't scale with increasing number of VMs.
> > >
> > > The other limitation is to have single vhost thread to process both
> > RX
> > > and TX, the work will be blocked. So we create this per cpu vhost
> > thread
> > > implementation. The number of vhost cpu threads is limited to the
> > number
> > > of cpus on the host.
> > >
> > > To address these limitations, we are propsing a per-cpu vhost thread
> > > model where the number of vhost threads are limited and equal to the
> > > number of online cpus on the host.
> > 
> > The number of vhost thread needs more consideration. Consider that we 
> > have a 1024 cores host with a card have 16 tx/rx queues, do we really 
> > need 1024 vhost threads?
> 
> In this case, we could add a module parameter to limit the number of
> cores/sockets to be used.

Hmm. And then which cores would we run on?
Also, is the parameter different between guests?
Another idea is to scale the # of threads on demand.

Sharing the same thread between guests is also an
interesting approach, if we did this then per-cpu
won't be so expensive but making this work well
with cgroups would be a challenge.


> > >
> > > Based on our testing experience, the vcpus can be scheduled across
> > cpu
> > > sockets even when the number of vcpus is smaller than the number of
> > > cores per cpu socket and there is no other  activities besides KVM
> > > networking workload. We found that if vhost thread is scheduled on
> > the
> > > same socket as the work is received, the performance will be better.
> > >
> > > So in this per cpu vhost thread implementation, a vhost thread is
> > > selected dynamically based on where the TX/RX work is initiated. A
> > vhost
> > > thread on the same cpu socket is selected but not on the same cpu as
> > the
> > > vcpu/interrupt thread that initizated the TX/RX work.
> > >
> > > When we test this RFC patch, the other interesting thing we found is
> > the
> > > performance results also seem related to NIC flow steering. We are
> > > spending time on evaluate different NICs flow director
> > implementation
> > > now. We will enhance this patch based on our findings later.
> > >
> > > We have tried different scheduling: per-device based, per vq based
> > and
> > > per work type (tx_kick, rx_kick, tx_net, rx_net) based vhost
> > scheduling,
> > > we found that so far the per vq based scheduling is good enough for
> > now.
> > 
> > Could you please explain more about those scheduling strategies? Does 
> > per-device based means let a dedicated vhost thread to handle all
> > work 
> > from that vhost device? As you mentioned, maybe an improvement of the 
> > scheduling to take flow steering info (queue mapping, rxhash etc.) of 
> > skb in host into account.
> 
> Yes, per-device scheduling means one per-cpu vhost theads handle all
> works from one particular vhost-device.
> 
> Yes, we think scheduling to take flow steering info would help
> performance. I am studying this now.

Did anything interesing turn up?


> > >
> > > We also tried different algorithm to select which cpu vhost thread
> > will
> > > running on a specific cpu socket: avg_load balance, and randomly...
> > 
> > May worth to account the out-of-oder packet during the test as for a 
> > single stream as different cpu/vhost/physical queue may be chose to
> > do 
> > the packet transmission/reception?
> 
> Good point. I haven't gone through all data yet. netstat output might
> tell us something.
> 
> We used Intel 10G NIC to run all test. For a single steam test, Intel
> NIC receiving irq steers with same irq/queue which TX packets have been
> sent. So when we mask vcpus from same VM on one socket, we shouldn't hit
> packet out-of-order case. We might hit packet out of order when vcpus
> run across sockets.
> 
> > >
> > > > From our test results, we found that the scalability has been
> > > significantly improved. And this patch is also helpful for small
> > packets
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > Hoever, we are seeing some regressions in a local guest to guest
> > > scenario on a 8 cpu NUMA system.
> > > In one case, 24 VMs 256 bytes tcp_stream test shows it has improved
> > from
> > > 810Mb/s to 9.1Gb/s. :)
> > > (We created two local VMs, and each VM has 2 vcpus. W/o this patch,
> > the
> > > number of threads is 4 vcpus + 2 vhosts = 6, w/i this patch is 4
> > vcpus +
> > > 8 vhosts = 12. It causes more context switches. When I change the
> > > scheduling to use 2-4 vhost threads, the regressions are gone. I am
> > > continue investigation on how to make small number of VMs, local
> > guest
> > > to gues performance better. Once I find the clue, I will share
> > here.)

So, that's one obvious reason. But there could be other explanations:
1. You explicitly mask out the same CPU. But if the socket
   is very small (it's likely each socket is 2 CPUs or even 1 here),
   this might limit the scheduler drastically.
2. If guest ends up running on the same socket, you cause
   more IPIs which cause exists for the other guest.

> > >
> > > The cpu hotplug support hasn't in place yet. I will post it later.

Not yet done, right?

> > Another question is why not just using workqueue? It has full support 
> > for cpu hotplug and allow more polices.
> 
> Yes, it's good to use workqueue. I just did everything on top of current
> implementation so it's easy to compare/analyze the performance data.
> 
> I remembered the vhost implementation changed from workqueue to thread
> for some reason. I couldn't recall the reason.

At the time the implementation didn't perform well with per-cpu
threads. We wanted a single thread so switched to use just that.

> > >
> > > Since we have per cpu vhost thread, each vhost thread will handle
> > > multiple vqs, so we will be able to reduce/remove vq notification
> > when
> > > the work is heavy loaded in future.
> > 
> > Does this issue still exist if event index is used? If vhost does not 
> > publish new used index, guest would not kick again.
> 
> Since the vhost model has been changed to handle multiple VMs' vqs work,
> then it's not necessary to enable these VMs' vqs notification (published
> new used idex) where these vqs' future work will be processed on the
> same per-cpu vhost thread, as long as the per-cpu vhost thread is still
> running.
> 
> > >
> > > Here is my test results for remote host to guest test: tcp_rrs,
> > udp_rrs,
> > > tcp_stream with guest has 2 vpus, host has two cpu socket, each
> > socket
> > > has 4 cores.
> > >
> > > TCP_STREAM    256     512     1K      2K      4K      8K      16K
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Original
> > >
> > H->Guest      2501    4238    4744    5256    7203    6975    5799          
> >   Patch
> > >
> > H->Guest      1676    2290    3149    8026    8439    8283    8216    
> > >                                                               
> > > Original
> > >
> > Guest->H      744     1773    5675    1397    8207    7296    8117    
> > > Patch
> > > Guest->Host   1041    1386    5407    7057    8298    8127    8241
> > 
> > Looks like there's some noise in the result, the throughput of
> > "original 
> > guest -> Host 2K" looks too low. And some strange is that I see 
> > regressions of packet transmission of guest when testing this patch.
> > ( 
> > Guest to Local Host TCP_STREAM in a NUMA machine).
> 
> Yes, since I didn't mask the vcpus on the same socket, it might come
> from packets out of order. I will rerun the test w/i masking vcpus on
> the same socket to see any difference.

Did anything interesting turn up?

> You can reference Tom's results. His test is more formal than mine.
> 
> > >
> > > 60 instances TCP_RRs: Patch 150K trans/s vs. 91K trans/sec
> > > 65%  improved with taskset vcpus on the same socket
> > > 60 instances UDP_RRs: Patch 172K trans/s vs. 103K trans/s
> > > 67%  improved with taskset vcpus on the same socket
> > >
> > > Tom has run 1VM to 24 VMs test for different work. He will post it
> > here
> > > soon.
> > >
> > > If the host scheduler ensures that the VM's vcpus are not scheduled
> > to
> > > another socket (i.e. cpu mask the vcpus on same socket) then the
> > > performance will be better.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma<x...@us.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar<krkum...@in.ibm.com>
> > > Tested-by: Tom Lendacky<t...@us.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   drivers/vhost/net.c                  |   26 ++-
> > >   drivers/vhost/vhost.c                |  289
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >   drivers/vhost/vhost.h                |   16 ++-
> > >   3 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Shirley
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> > 

Also a question: how does this interact with zero copy tx?

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to