>On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 12:29:47PM +0000, haibinzhang wrote:
>> >On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:08:26AM +0000, haibinzhang wrote:
>> >> handle_tx will delay rx for a long time when tx busy polling udp packets
>> >> with small length(e.g. 1byte udp payload), because setting
>> >> VHOST_NET_WEIGHT
>> >> takes into account only sent-bytes but no single packet length.
>> >>
>> >> Tests were done between two Virtual Machines using netperf(UDP_STREAM,
>> >> len=1),
>> >> then another machine pinged the client. Result shows as follow:
>> >>
>> >> Packet# Ping-Latency(ms)
>> >> min avg max
>> >> Origin 3.319 18.489 57.503
>> >> 64 1.643 2.021 2.552
>> >> 128 1.825 2.600 3.224
>> >> 256 1.997 2.710 4.295
>> >> 512* 1.860 3.171 4.631
>> >> 1024 2.002 4.173 9.056
>> >> 2048 2.257 5.650 9.688
>> >> 4096 2.093 8.508 15.943
>> >>
>> >> 512 is selected, which is multi-VRING_SIZE
>> >
>> >There's no guarantee vring size is 256.
>> >
>> >Could you pls try with a different tx ring size?
>> >
>> >I suspect we want:
>> >
>> >#define VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT(vq) ((vq)->num * 2)
>> >
>> >
>> >> and close to VHOST_NET_WEIGHT/MTU.
>> >
>> >Puzzled by this part. Does tweaking MTU change anything?
>>
>> The MTU of ethernet is 1500, so VHOST_NET_WEIGHT/MTU equals 0x80000/1500=350.
>
>We should include the 12 byte header so it's a bit lower.
>
>> Then sent-bytes cannot reach VHOST_NET_WEIGHT in one handle_tx even with
>> 1500-bytes
>> frame if packet# is less than 350. So packet# must be bigger than 350.
>> 512 meets this condition
>
>What you seem to say is this:
>
> imagine MTU sized buffers. With these we stop after 350
> packets. Thus adding another limit > 350 will not
> slow us down.
>
> Fair enough but won't apply with smaller packet
> sizes, will it?
Right.
>
> I still think a simpler argument carries more weight:
>
>ring size is a hint from device about a burst size
>it can tolerate. Based on benchmarks, we tweak
>the limit to 2 * vq size as that seems to
>perform a bit better, and is still safer
>than no limit on # of packets as is done now.
>
> but this needs testing with another ring size.
> Could you try that please?
Get it.
We will test with another ring size and submit again
>
>
>> and is also DEFAULT VRING_SIZE aligned.
>
>Neither Linux nor virtio have a default vring size. It's a historical
>construct that exists in qemu for qemu compatibility
>reasons.
>
>> >
>> >> To evaluate this change, another tests were done using netperf(RR, TX)
>> >> between
>> >> two machines with Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6133 CPU @ 2.50GHz. Result as
>> >> follow
>> >> does not show obvious changes:
>> >>
>> >> TCP_RR
>> >>
>> >> size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
>> >> 1/ 1/ -7%/ -2%
>> >> 1/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
>> >> 1/ 8/ +1%/ -2%
>> >> 64/ 1/ -6%/ 0%
>> >> 64/ 4/ 0%/ +2%
>> >> 64/ 8/ 0%/ 0%
>> >> 256/ 1/ -3%/ -4%
>> >> 256/ 4/ +3%/ +4%
>> >> 256/ 8/ +2%/ 0%
>> >>
>> >> UDP_RR
>> >>
>> >> size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
>> >> 1/ 1/ -5%/ +1%
>> >> 1/ 4/ +4%/ +1%
>> >> 1/ 8/ -1%/ -1%
>> >> 64/ 1/ -2%/ -3%
>> >> 64/ 4/ -5%/ -1%
>> >> 64/ 8/ 0%/ -1%
>> >> 256/ 1/ +7%/ +1%
>> >> 256/ 4/ +1%/ +1%
>> >> 256/ 8/ +2%/ +2%
>> >>
>> >> TCP_STREAM
>> >>
>> >> size/sessions/+thu%/+normalize%
>> >> 64/ 1/ 0%/ -3%
>> >> 64/ 4/ +3%/ -1%
>> >> 64/ 8/ +9%/ -4%
>> >> 256/ 1/ +1%/ -4%
>> >> 256/ 4/ -1%/ -1%
>> >> 256/ 8/ +7%/ +5%
>> >> 512/ 1/ +1%/ 0%
>> >> 512/ 4/ +1%/ -1%
>> >> 512/ 8/ +7%/ -5%
>> >> 1024/ 1/ 0%/ -1%
>> >> 1024/ 4/ +3%/ 0%
>> >> 1024/ 8/ +8%/ +5%
>> >> 2048/ 1/ +2%/ +2%
>> >> 2048/ 4/ +1%/ 0%
>> >> 2048/ 8/ -2%/ 0%
>> >> 4096/ 1/ -2%/ 0%
>> >> 4096/ 4/ +2%/ 0%
>> >> 4096/ 8/ +9%/ -2%
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Haibin Zhang <haibinzh...@tencent.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Yunfang Tai <yunfang...@tencent.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongc...@tencent.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/vhost/net.c | 8 +++++++-
>> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> >> index 8139bc70ad7d..13a23f3f3ea4 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> >> @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(experimental_zcopytx, "Enable Zero
>> >> Copy TX;"
>> >> * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving others. */
>> >> #define VHOST_NET_WEIGHT 0x80000
>> >>
>> >> +/* Max number of packets transferred before requeueing the job.
>> >> + * Using this limit prevents one virtqueue from starving rx. */
>> >> +#define VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT 512
>> >> +
>> >> /* MAX number of TX used buffers for outstanding zerocopy */
>> >> #define VHOST_MAX_PEND 128
>> >> #define VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN 256
>> >> @@ -473,6 +477,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> >> struct socket *sock;
>> >> struct vhost_net_ubuf_ref *uninitialized_var(ubufs);
>> >> bool zcopy, zcopy_used;
>> >> + int sent_pkts = 0;
>> >>
>> >> mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
>> >> sock = vq->private_data;
>> >> @@ -580,7 +585,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> >> else
>> >> vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
>> >> vhost_net_tx_packet(net);
>> >> - if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT)) {
>> >> + if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT) ||
>> >> + unlikely(++sent_pkts >= VHOST_NET_PKT_WEIGHT)) {
>> >> vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>> >> break;
>> >> }
>> >> --
>> >> 2.12.3
>> >>
>>
