Hi Harry,
Great News --- got performance improvement!
With Tim' new build last Friday, I have got new set of performance
numbers. Got about 20% performance improvement with all three
enhancements included --- whether it is 0.1% loss limit or 0.002% loss
limit. Got no improvement if only the first two enhancements were included.
The summary report is attached right below. Please review, and let me
know if the current performance meets your expectation.
Thanks!
Jean
=====================================
*OVS RPMS=openvswitch2.15-2.15.0-23.el8fdp.x86_64,
openvswitch2.15-debuginfo-2.15.0-23.el8fdp.x86_64*
*EMC Off
*
/Trex binary search for next two tests --- 64 bytes,***0.1% loss*
*limit*, 1024 flows, 60 secs trial/600 secs validation/
Test case #1
* default --- not including any of the tree enhancements
* Mpps=12.4 Mpps (100%)
Test case #2
* Including all three enhancements --- ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/subtable-lookup-prio-set avx512_gather 3; ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/dpif-set dpif_avx512 ; ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/miniflow-esparser-set study
* Mpps=14.9 Mpps (120.1%)
/Trex binary search for next two tests --- 64
bytes,//*0*/*/./**/0/**/02% loss limit/*/, 1024 flows, 60 secs trial/600
secs validation/
Test case #1
* default --- not including any of the tree enhancements
* Mpps=12.1 Mpps (100%)
Test case #2
* Including all three enhancements --- ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/subtable-lookup-prio-set avx512_gather 3; ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/dpif-set dpif_avx512 ; ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/miniflow-parser-set study
* Mpps=14.6 Mpps (120.6%)
*NOTE: There is no performance gain if only the first two enhancements
are included.*
*Bonus run with latest openvswitch2.15 fdp---
openvswitch2.15-2.15.0-23.el8fdp*
* 0.1% loss limit
* 10.1 Mpps
On 5/27/21 10:12 AM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
(Sorry for top posting – HTML/email-client disagree with inline
answers below :/ )
Hi Jean,
Yes I expect drops of 0.002% to be enough tolerance. (If the
performance does not improve to Scalar (or higher) please try a much
higher value like 0.1%.)
Regards, -Harry
*From:* Jean Hsiao <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:06 PM
*To:* Van Haaren, Harry <[email protected]>; Timothy Redaelli
<[email protected]>; Amber, Kumar <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Jean Hsiao <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Stokes, Ian
<[email protected]>; Christian Trautman <[email protected]>;
Ferriter, Cian <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [ovs-dev] [v2 v2 0/6] MFEX Infrastructure + Optimizations
On 5/26/21 4:52 PM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
Hi Jean,
Thanks for the very detailed info, this was very useful in
identifying the differences between the test setup that we have
been running and what your configuration is.
The issue being observed by your testing is due to multiple
root-causes; hence this has taken some time to identify, apologies
for the delay in response!
In order to reproduce the numbers from the OVS Optimization
whitepaper (where the AVX512 patch performance results are stated),
please make the following adjustments to the testing setup:
1. Change from "No Drop Rate" testing, to "packet blast" testing.
Hi Harry,
Just to Clarrify. You want to have higher PvP Mpps while allowing some
drops.
If that's the case, we can relax loss ratio from 0 to 0.002% --- 20
losses per million. If you want higher loss rate, please specify.
Thanks!
Jean
2.
3. Turn off EMC
4.
With the above two changes, your results are expected to show
approx. the same value-add as we have showing in the whitepaper.
Please note there remain differences: the whitepaper compares 2^nd
generation vs 3^rd generation Xeon processors, while benchmarks
here are 1^st Generation.
(For those more about CPU code names, the whitepaper measures
Cascade-Lake vs Icelake, and the results here are Skylake).
Regarding the changes (as above)
1. I understand that OVS deployments _/are/*_* sensitive to
No-Drop-Rate performance, and we will work on a solution that
has better-than-scalar-code performance in this usage too.
2. EMC is handling all traffic today, which hides the DPCLS
optimizations as no packets hit DPCLS. (This explains why
"master" and "avx512_gather 3" performance are both 15.2 mpps).
If you can make time to re-run the benchmarks with the above 2
changes, I expect we will see performance benefits.
To reduce amount of work to benchmark, just running the "Plus All
Three" workload would be sufficient to show value of the avx512
optimizations.
Thanks for the input on performance here! Regards, -Harry
*From:* Jean Hsiao <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2021 5:29 PM
*To:* Van Haaren, Harry <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Timothy Redaelli
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>; Amber, Kumar
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>; Christian
Trautman <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [ovs-dev] [v2 v2 0/6] MFEX Infrastructure +
Optimizations
Hi Harry,
Pleae take a look. Let me know if needing more info.
Thanks!
Jean
*1&3)*
Master run: See attachments master-1-0 and master-1-1.
Plus avx512: See attachments avx512-1-0 and avx512-1-1
NOTE: On a quick look don't see avx512 function(s) around. Is it
because EMC doing all the work?
*2)* NOTE: I am using different commands --- pmd-stats-clear and
show; Now you can see 100% processing cycles.
*[root@netqe29 jhsiao]# ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-stats-clear
[root@netqe29 jhsiao]# ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-stats-show*
pmd thread numa_id 0 core_id 24:
packets received: 79625792
packet recirculations: 0
avg. datapath passes per packet: 1.00
emc hits: 79625760
smc hits: 0
megaflow hits: 0
avg. subtable lookups per megaflow hit: 0.00
miss with success upcall: 0
miss with failed upcall: 0
avg. packets per output batch: 32.00
idle cycles: 0 (0.00%)
*processing cycles: 27430462544 (100.00%)*
avg cycles per packet: 344.49 (27430462544/79625792)
avg processing cycles per packet: 344.49 (27430462544/79625792)
pmd thread numa_id 0 core_id 52:
packets received: 79771872
packet recirculations: 0
avg. datapath passes per packet: 1.00
emc hits: 79771872
smc hits: 0
megaflow hits: 0
avg. subtable lookups per megaflow hit: 0.00
miss with success upcall: 0
miss with failed upcall: 0
avg. packets per output batch: 32.00
idle cycles: 0 (0.00%)
*processing cycles: 27430498048 (100.00%)*
avg cycles per packet: 343.86 (27430498048/79771872)
avg processing cycles per packet: 343.86 (27430498048/79771872)
main thread:
packets received: 0
packet recirculations: 0
avg. datapath passes per packet: 0.00
emc hits: 0
smc hits: 0
megaflow hits: 0
avg. subtable lookups per megaflow hit: 0.00
miss with success upcall: 0
miss with failed upcall: 0
avg. packets per output batch: 0.00
[root@netqe29 jhsiao]#
On 5/14/21 11:33 AM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
Hi Jean,
Apologies for top post – just a quick note here today. Thanks
for all the info, good amount of detail.
1 & 3)
Unfortunately the "perf top" output seems to be of a binary
without debug symbols, so it is not possible to see what is
what. (Apologies, I should have specified to include debug
symbols & then we can see function names like "dpcls_lookup"
and "miniflow_extract" instead of 0x00001234 :) I would be
interested in the output with function-names, if that's possible?
2) Is it normal that the vswitch datapath core is >= 80% idle?
This seems a little strange – and might hint that the
bottleneck is not on the OVS vswitch datapath cores? (from
your pmd-perf-stats below):
- idle iterations: 17444555421 ( 84.1 % of used cycles)
- busy iterations: 84924866 ( 15.9 % of used cycles)
4) Ah yes, no-drop testing, "failed to converge" suddenly
makes a lot of sense, thanks!
Regards, -Harry
*From:* Jean Hsiao <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 3:27 PM
*To:* Van Haaren, Harry <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Timothy Redaelli
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>; Amber,
Kumar <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Jean Hsiao
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>;
Christian Trautman <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [ovs-dev] [v2 v2 0/6] MFEX Infrastructure +
Optimizations
On 5/11/21 7:35 AM, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Redaelli <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 6:43 PM
To: Amber, Kumar <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Van Haaren, Harry
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [v2 v2 0/6] MFEX Infrastructure
+ Optimizations
<snip patchset details for brevity>
Hi,
we (as Red Hat) did some tests with a "special" build
created on top of
master (a019868a6268 at that time) with with the 2
series ("DPIF
Framework + Optimizations" and "MFEX Infrastructure +
Optimizations")
cherry-picked.
The spec file was also modified in order to use add
"-msse4.2 -mpopcnt"
to OVS CFLAGS.
Hi Timothy,
Thanks for testing and reporting back your findings! Most
of the configuration is clear to me, but I have a few open
questions inline below for context.
The performance numbers reported in the email below do not
show benefit when enabling AVX512, which contradicts our
recent whitepaper on benchmarking an Optimized Deployment
of OVS, which includes the AVX512 patches you've
benchmarked too.
Specifically Table 8. for DPIF/MFEX patches, and Table 9.
for the overall optimizations at a platform level are
relevant:
https://networkbuilders.intel.com/solutionslibrary/open-vswitch-optimized-deployment-benchmark-technology-guide
<https://networkbuilders.intel.com/solutionslibrary/open-vswitch-optimized-deployment-benchmark-technology-guide>
Based on the differences between these performance
reports, there must be some discrepancy in our
testing/measurements.
I hope that the questions below help us understand any
differences so we can all measure the benefits from these
optimizations.
Regards, -Harry
RPM=openvswitch2.15-2.15.0-37.avx512.1.el8fdp (the
"special" build with
the patches backported)
* Master --- 15.2 Mpps
* Plus "avx512_gather 3" Only --- 15.2 Mpps
* Plus "dpif-set dpif_avx512" Only --- 10.1 Mpps
* Plus "miniflow-parser-set study" --- Failed to
converge
* Plus all three --- 13.5 Mpps
Open questions:
1) Is CPU frequency turbo enabled in any scenario, or
always pinned to the 2.6 GHz base frequency?
- A "perf top -C x,y" (where x,y are datapath
hyperthread ids) would be interesting to compare with 3)
below.
See attached screentshoots for two samples --- master-0 and
master-1
2) "plus Avx512 gather 3" (aka, DPCLS in AVX512), we see
same performance. Is DPCLS in use, or is EMC doing all the
work?
- The output of " ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-perf-show"
would be interesting to understand where packets are
classified.
EMC doing all the work --- see log below. This could explain
why setting avx512 is not helping.
NOTE: Our initial study showed that disabling EMC didn't help
avx512 wining the case.
[root@netqe29 jhsiao]# ovs-appctl
dpif-netdev/subtable-lookup-prio-get
Available lookup functions (priority : name)
0 : autovalidator
*1 : generic*
0 : avx512_gather
[root@netqe29 jhsiao]#
sleep 60; ovs-appctl dpif-netdev/pmd-perf-show
Time: 13:54:40.213
Measurement duration: 2242.679 s
pmd thread numa_id 0 core_id 24:
Iterations: 17531214131 (0.13 us/it)
- Used TSC cycles: 5816810246080 (100.1 % of total cycles)
- idle iterations: 17446464548 ( 84.1 % of used cycles)
- busy iterations: 84749583 ( 15.9 % of used cycles)
Rx packets: 2711982944 (1209 Kpps, 340 cycles/pkt)
Datapath passes: 2711982944 (1.00 passes/pkt)
- EMC hits: 2711677677 (100.0 %)
- SMC hits: 0 ( 0.0 %)
- Megaflow hits: 305261 ( 0.0 %, 1.00 subtbl
lookups/hit)
- Upcalls: 6 ( 0.0 %, 0.0 us/upcall)
- Lost upcalls: 0 ( 0.0 %)
Tx packets: 2711982944 (1209 Kpps)
Tx batches: 84749583 (32.00 pkts/batch)
Time: 13:54:40.213
Measurement duration: 2242.675 s
pmd thread numa_id 0 core_id 52:
Iterations: 17529480287 (0.13 us/it)
- Used TSC cycles: 5816709563052 (100.1 % of total cycles)
- idle iterations: 17444555421 ( 84.1 % of used cycles)
- busy iterations: 84924866 ( 15.9 % of used cycles)
Rx packets: 2717592640 (1212 Kpps, 340 cycles/pkt)
Datapath passes: 2717592640 (1.00 passes/pkt)
- EMC hits: 2717280240 (100.0 %)
- SMC hits: 0 ( 0.0 %)
- Megaflow hits: 312362 ( 0.0 %, 1.00 subtbl
lookups/hit)
- Upcalls: 6 ( 0.0 %, 0.0 us/upcall)
- Lost upcalls: 0 ( 0.0 %)
Tx packets: 2717592608 (1212 Kpps)
Tx batches: 84924866 (32.00 pkts/batch)
[root@netqe29 jhsiao]#
3) "dpif-set dpif_avx512" only. The performance here is
very strange, with ~30% reduction, while our testing shows
performance improvement.
- A "perf top" here (compared vs step 1) would be
helpful to see what is going on
See avx512-0 and avx512-1 attachments.
4) "miniflow parser set study", I don't understand what is
meant by "Failed to converge"?
This is a 64-bytes 0-loss run. So, "Failed to converge" means
the binary search fail to get a meaningful Mpps value. This
could be the case that drops are happening --- could be 1 out
of a million packets.
- Is the traffic running in your benchmark
Ether()/IP()/UDP() ?
- Note that the only traffic pattern accelerated today
is Ether()/IP()/UDP() (see patch
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/
<https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/>
for details). The next revision of the patchset will
include other traffic patterns, for example
Ether()/Dot1Q()/IP()/UDP() and Ether()/IP()/TCP().
RPM=openvswitch2.15-2.15.0-15.el8fdp (w/o "-msse4.2
-mpopcnt")
* 15.2 Mpps
5) What CFLAGS "-march=" CPU ISA and "-O" optimization
options are being used for the package?
- It is likely that "-msse4.2 -mpopcnt" is already
implied if -march=corei7 or Nehalem for example.
Tim, Can you answer this question?
P2P benchmark
* ovs-dpdk/25 Gb i40e <-> trex/i40e
* single queue two pmd's --- two HT's out of a CPU
core.
Host CPU
Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6132 CPU @
2.60GHz
Thanks for detailing the configuration, and looking
forward to understanding the configuration/performance better.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
