> > Hi Loftus, > > Thanks for testing and the comments! > Can you show more details about your phy-vm-phy,phy-phy setup and > testing steps? Then I can reproduce it to see if I can solve this pps problem.
You're welcome. I forgot to mention my tests were with 64B packets. For phy-phy the setup is a single host with 2 dpdk physical ports and 1 flow rule port1 -> port2. See figure 3 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-04#section-4 For the phy-vm-phy the setup is a single host with 2 dpdk physical ports and 2 vhostuser ports with flow rules: Dpdk1 -> vhost 1 & vhost2 -> dpdk2 IP rules are set up in the VM to route packets from vhost1 to vhost 2. See figure 4 in the link above. > > BTW, how about throughput, did you saw improvment? By throughput if you mean 0% packet loss, I did not test this. Thanks, Ciara > > I would like to implement vhost->vhost part. > > Thanks > Zhenyu Gao > > 2017-08-04 22:52 GMT+08:00 Loftus, Ciara <[email protected]>: > > > > Currently, the dpdk-vhost side in ovs doesn't support tcp/udp tx cksum. > > So L4 packets's cksum were calculated in VM side but performance is not > > good. > > Implementing tcp/udp tx cksum in ovs-dpdk side improves throughput and > > makes virtio-net frontend-driver support NETIF_F_SG as well > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Gao <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > Here is some performance number: > > > > Setup: > > > > qperf client > > +---------+ > > | VM | > > +---------+ > > | > > | qperf server > > +--------------+ +------------+ > > | vswitch+dpdk | | bare-metal | > > +--------------+ +------------+ > > | | > > | | > > pNic---------PhysicalSwitch---- > > > > do cksum in ovs-dpdk: Applied this patch and execute 'ethtool -K eth0 tx > on' > > in VM side. > > It offload cksum job to ovs-dpdk side. > > > > do cksum in VM: Applied this patch and execute 'ethtool -K eth0 tx off' in > VM > > side. > > VM calculate cksum for tcp/udp packets. > > > > We can see huge improvment in TCP throughput if we leverage ovs-dpdk > > cksum. > Hi Zhenyu, > > Thanks for the patch. I tested some alternative use cases and unfortunately I > see a degradation for phy-phy and phy-vm-phy topologies. > Here are my results: > > phy-vm-phy: > without patch: 0.871Mpps > with patch (offload=on): 0.877Mpps > with patch (offload=off): 0.891Mpps > > phy-phy: > without patch: 13.581Mpps > with patch: 13.055Mpps > > The half a million pps drop for the second test case is concerning to me but > not surprising since we're adding extra complexity to netdev_dpdk_send() > Could this be avoided? Would it make sense to put this functionality > somewhere else eg. vhost receive? > > On another note I have a general concern. I understand similar functionality > is present in the DPDK vhost sample app. I wonder if it would be feasible for > this to be implemented in the DPDK vhost library and leveraged here, rather > than having two implementations in two separate code bases. > > I have some other comments inline. > > Thanks, > Ciara > > > > > [root@localhost ~]# qperf -t 10 -oo msg_size:1:64K:*2 host-qperf-server01 > > tcp_bw tcp_lat udp_bw udp_lat > > do cksum in ovs-dpdk do cksum in VM without this > >patch > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 2.05 MB/sec bw = 1.92 MB/sec bw = 1.95 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 3.9 MB/sec bw = 3.99 MB/sec bw = 3.98 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 8.09 MB/sec bw = 7.82 MB/sec bw = 8.19 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 14.9 MB/sec bw = 14.8 MB/sec bw = 15.7 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 27.7 MB/sec bw = 28 MB/sec bw = 29.7 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 51.2 MB/sec bw = 50.9 MB/sec bw = 54.9 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 86.7 MB/sec bw = 86.8 MB/sec bw = 95.1 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 149 MB/sec bw = 160 MB/sec bw = 149 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 211 MB/sec bw = 205 MB/sec bw = 216 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 271 MB/sec bw = 254 MB/sec bw = 275 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 326 MB/sec bw = 303 MB/sec bw = 321 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 407 MB/sec bw = 359 MB/sec bw = 361 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 816 MB/sec bw = 512 MB/sec bw = 419 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 840 MB/sec bw = 756 MB/sec bw = 457 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 1.07 GB/sec bw = 880 MB/sec bw = 480 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 1.17 GB/sec bw = 1.01 GB/sec bw = 488 MB/sec > > tcp_bw: > > bw = 1.17 GB/sec bw = 1.11 GB/sec bw = 483 MB/sec > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.2 us latency = 29.6 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 28.9 us latency = 29.3 us latency = 29.5 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.3 us latency = 29.6 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.4 us latency = 29.5 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29 us latency = 29.2 us latency = 29.6 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29.1 us latency = 29.3 us latency = 29.7 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29.4 us latency = 29.6 us latency = 30 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 29.8 us latency = 30.1 us latency = 30.2 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 30.9 us latency = 30.9 us latency = 31 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 46.9 us latency = 46.2 us latency = 32.2 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 51.5 us latency = 52.6 us latency = 34.5 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 43.9 us latency = 43.8 us latency = 43.6 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 47.6 us latency = 48 us latency = 48.1 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 77.7 us latency = 78.8 us latency = 78.8 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 82.8 us latency = 82.3 us latency = 116 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 94.8 us latency = 94.2 us latency = 134 us > > tcp_lat: > > latency = 167 us latency = 197 us latency = 172 us > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 418 KB/sec send_bw = 413 KB/sec send_bw = 403 > KB/sec > > recv_bw = 410 KB/sec recv_bw = 412 KB/sec recv_bw = 400 > >KB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 831 KB/sec send_bw = 825 KB/sec send_bw = 810 > KB/sec > > recv_bw = 828 KB/sec recv_bw = 816 KB/sec recv_bw = 807 > >KB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 1.67 MB/sec send_bw = 1.65 MB/sec send_bw = 1.63 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 1.64 MB/sec recv_bw = 1.62 MB/sec recv_bw = 1.63 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 3.36 MB/sec send_bw = 3.29 MB/sec send_bw = 3.26 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 3.29 MB/sec recv_bw = 3.25 MB/sec recv_bw = 2.82 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 6.72 MB/sec send_bw = 6.61 MB/sec send_bw = 6.45 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 6.54 MB/sec recv_bw = 6.59 MB/sec recv_bw = 6.45 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 13.4 MB/sec send_bw = 13.2 MB/sec send_bw = 13 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 13.1 MB/sec recv_bw = 13.1 MB/sec recv_bw = 13 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 26.8 MB/sec send_bw = 26.4 MB/sec send_bw = 25.9 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 26.4 MB/sec recv_bw = 26.2 MB/sec recv_bw = 25.7 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 53.4 MB/sec send_bw = 52.5 MB/sec send_bw = 52 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 48.4 MB/sec recv_bw = 51.8 MB/sec recv_bw = 51.2 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 106 MB/sec send_bw = 104 MB/sec send_bw = 103 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 98.9 MB/sec recv_bw = 93.2 MB/sec recv_bw = 100 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 213 MB/sec send_bw = 206 MB/sec send_bw = 205 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 197 MB/sec recv_bw = 196 MB/sec recv_bw = 202 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 417 MB/sec send_bw = 405 MB/sec send_bw = 401 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 400 MB/sec recv_bw = 333 MB/sec recv_bw = 358 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 556 MB/sec send_bw = 552 MB/sec send_bw = 557 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 361 MB/sec recv_bw = 365 MB/sec recv_bw = 362 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 865 MB/sec send_bw = 866 MB/sec send_bw = 863 > > MB/sec > > recv_bw = 564 MB/sec recv_bw = 573 MB/sec recv_bw = 584 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 1.05 GB/sec send_bw = 1.09 GB/sec send_bw = 1.08 > > GB/sec > > recv_bw = 789 MB/sec recv_bw = 732 MB/sec recv_bw = 793 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 1.18 GB/sec send_bw = 1.23 GB/sec send_bw = 1.19 > > GB/sec > > recv_bw = 658 MB/sec recv_bw = 788 MB/sec recv_bw = 673 > > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 1.3 GB/sec send_bw = 1.3 GB/sec send_bw = 1.3 > GB/sec > > recv_bw = 659 MB/sec recv_bw = 763 MB/sec recv_bw = 762 > MB/sec > > udp_bw: > > send_bw = 0 bytes/sec send_bw = 0 bytes/sec send_bw = 0 > > bytes/sec > > recv_bw = 0 bytes/sec recv_bw = 0 bytes/sec recv_bw = 0 > >bytes/sec > > udp_lat: > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.5 us latency = 26.4 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.5 us latency = 26.3 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.3 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.6 us latency = 26.3 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.7 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 27 us latency = 26.7 us latency = 26.6 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 27 us latency = 26.9 us latency = 26.7 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 27.6 us latency = 27.4 us latency = 27.3 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 28.1 us latency = 28 us latency = 28 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 29.4 us latency = 29.2 us latency = 29.2 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 31 us latency = 31 us latency = 30.8 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 41.4 us latency = 41.4 us latency = 41.3 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 41.6 us latency = 41.5 us latency = 41.5 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 64.9 us latency = 65 us latency = 65 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 72.3 us latency = 72 us latency = 72 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 121 us latency = 122 us latency = 122 us > > udp_lat: > > latency = 0 ns latency = 0 ns latency = 0 ns > > > > > > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 84 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > index ea17b97..d27d615 100644 > > --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > > #include <rte_errno.h> > > #include <rte_eth_ring.h> > > #include <rte_ethdev.h> > > +#include <rte_ip.h> > > #include <rte_malloc.h> > > #include <rte_mbuf.h> > > #include <rte_meter.h> > > @@ -1392,6 +1393,84 @@ netdev_dpdk_rxq_dealloc(struct netdev_rxq > > *rxq) > > rte_free(rx); > > } > > > > +static inline void > > +netdev_refill_l4_cksum(const char *data, struct dp_packet *pkt, > > + uint8_t l4_proto, bool is_ipv4) > > +{ > > + void *l3hdr = (void *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs); > > + > > + if (l4_proto == IPPROTO_TCP) { > > + struct tcp_header *tcp_hdr = (struct tcp_header *)(data + pkt- > >l4_ofs); > > + > > + pkt->mbuf.l2_len = pkt->l3_ofs; > > + pkt->mbuf.l3_len = pkt->l4_ofs - pkt->l3_ofs; > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = 0; > > + if (is_ipv4) { > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr, tcp_hdr); > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV4; > > + } else { > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV6; > > + tcp_hdr->tcp_csum = rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr, tcp_hdr); > > + } > > + } else if (l4_proto == IPPROTO_UDP) { > > + struct udp_header *udp_hdr = (struct udp_header *)(data + pkt- > > >l4_ofs); > > + /* do not recalculate udp cksum if it was 0 */ > > + if (udp_hdr->udp_csum != 0) { > > + pkt->mbuf.l2_len = pkt->l3_ofs; > > + pkt->mbuf.l3_len = pkt->l4_ofs - pkt->l3_ofs; > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = 0; > > + if (is_ipv4) { > > + /*do not calculate udp cksum if it was a fragment IP*/ > > + if (IP_IS_FRAGMENT(((struct ipv4_hdr *)l3hdr)-> > > + fragment_offset)) { > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV4; > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr, udp_hdr); > > + } else { > > + pkt->mbuf.ol_flags ^= PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM | PKT_TX_IPV6; > > + udp_hdr->udp_csum = rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3hdr, udp_hdr); > > + } > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static inline void > > +netdev_prepare_tx_csum(struct dp_packet **pkts, int pkt_cnt) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < pkt_cnt; i++) { > > + ovs_be16 dl_type; > > + struct dp_packet *pkt = (struct dp_packet *)pkts[i]; > > + const char *data = dp_packet_data(pkt); > > + void *l3hdr = (char *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs); > > + > > + if (pkt->l4_ofs == UINT16_MAX || pkt->l3_ofs == UINT16_MAX) { > > + continue; > > + } > > + /* This take a assumption that it should be a vhost packet if this > > + * packet was allocated by DPDK pool and try sending to pNic. */ > > + if (pkt->source == DPBUF_DPDK && > > + !(pkt->mbuf.ol_flags & PKT_TX_L4_MASK)) { > > + // DPDK vhost-user tags PKT_TX_L4_MASK if a L4 packet need > cksum > > + continue; > > + } > The comments here could be formatted better. Suggest combining both into > one comment before the 'if'. > Not sure the term 'pNIC' is widely used. Suggest using 'dpdk port'. > > > + > > + dl_type = *(ovs_be16 *)(data + pkt->l3_ofs - 2); > > + if (dl_type == htons(ETH_TYPE_IP)) { > > + netdev_refill_l4_cksum(data, pkt, > > + ((struct ipv4_hdr > > *)l3hdr)->next_proto_id, > > + true); > > + } else if (dl_type == htons(ETH_TYPE_IPV6)) { > > + netdev_refill_l4_cksum(data, pkt, > > + ((struct ipv6_hdr *)l3hdr)->proto, > > + false); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > > /* Tries to transmit 'pkts' to txq 'qid' of device 'dev'. Takes ownership > >of > > * 'pkts', even in case of failure. > > * > > @@ -1833,6 +1912,8 @@ netdev_dpdk_send__(struct netdev_dpdk *dev, > > int qid, > > return; > > } > > > > + netdev_prepare_tx_csum(batch->packets, batch->count); > > Putting this here assumes we only prepare the csum for vhost -> dpdk or > vhost -> ring cases. What about vhost -> vhost? > > > + > > if (OVS_UNLIKELY(concurrent_txq)) { > > qid = qid % dev->up.n_txq; > > rte_spinlock_lock(&dev->tx_q[qid].tx_lock); > > @@ -2741,8 +2822,7 @@ netdev_dpdk_vhost_class_init(void) > > if (ovsthread_once_start(&once)) { > > rte_vhost_driver_callback_register(&virtio_net_device_ops); > > rte_vhost_feature_disable(1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4 > > - | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6 > > - | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM); > > + | 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6); > > ovs_thread_create("vhost_thread", start_vhost_loop, NULL); > > > > ovsthread_once_done(&once); > > -- > > 1.8.3.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
