W dniu 2017-08-14 o 02:07, Alexander Duyck pisze:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Paweł Staszewski
<pstaszew...@itcare.pl> wrote:
Hi and thanks for reply
W dniu 2017-08-12 o 14:23, Jesper Dangaard Brouer pisze:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:51:10 +0200 Paweł Staszewski
<pstaszew...@itcare.pl> wrote:
Hi
I made some tests for performance comparison.
Thanks for doing this. Feel free to Cc me, if you do more of these
tests (so I don't miss them on the mailing list).
I don't understand stand if you are reporting a potential problem?
It would be good if you can provide a short summary section (of the
issue) in the _start_ of the email, and then provide all this nice data
afterwards, to back your case.
My understanding is, you report:
1. VLANs on ixgbe show a 30-40% slowdown
2. System stopped scaling after 7+ CPUs
So I had read through most of this before I realized what it was you
were reporting. As far as the behavior there are a few things going
on. I have some additional comments below but they are mostly based on
what I had read up to that point.
As far as possible issues for item 1. The VLAN adds 4 bytes of data of
the payload, when it is stripped it can result in a packet that is 56
bytes. These missing 8 bytes can cause issues as it forces the CPU to
do a read/modify/write every time the device writes to the 64B cache
line instead of just doing it as a single write. This can be very
expensive and hurt performance. In addition it adds 4 bytes on the
wire, so if you are sending the same 64B packets over the VLAN
interface it is bumping them up to 68B to make room for the VLAN tag.
I am suspecting you are encountering one of these type of issues. You
might try tweaking the packet sizes in increments of 4 to see if there
is a sweet spot that you might be falling out of or into.
No this is not a problem with 4byte header or soo
Cause topology is like this
TX generator (pktgen) physical interface no vlan -> RX physical
interface (no vlan) [ FORWARDING HOST ] TX vlan interface binded to
physical interface -> SINK
below data for packet size 70 (pktgen PKT_SIZE: 70)
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;16;70;7246720;434749440;7245917;420269856
1;16;70;7249152;434872320;7248885;420434344
2;16;70;7249024;434926080;7249225;420401400
3;16;70;7249984;434952960;7249448;420435736
4;16;70;7251200;435064320;7250990;420495244
5;16;70;7241408;434592000;7241781;420068074
6;16;70;7229696;433689600;7229750;419268196
7;16;70;7236032;434127360;7236133;419669092
8;16;70;7236608;434161920;7236274;419695830
9;16;70;7226496;433578240;7227501;419107826
100% cpu load on all 16 cores
the difference vlan/no vlan currently on this host varries from 40 to
even 50% (but cant check if can reach 50% performance degradation cause
pktgen can give me only 10Mpps with 70% of cpu load for forwarding host
(soo still place to forward maybee at line rate 14Mpps)
Item 2 is a known issue with the NICs supported by ixgbe, at least for
anything 82599 and later. The issue here is that there isn't really an
Rx descriptor cache so to try and optimize performance the hardware
will try to write back as many descriptors it has ready for the ring
requesting writeback. The problem is as you add more rings it means
the writes get smaller as they are triggering more often. So what you
end up seeing is that for each additional ring you add the performance
starts dropping as soon as the rings are no longer being fully
saturated. You can tell this has happened when the CPUs in use
suddenly all stop reporting 100% softirq use. So for example to
perform at line rate with 64B packets you would need something like
XDP and to keep the ring count small, like maybe 2 rings. Any more
than that and the performance will start to drop as you hit PCIe
bottlenecks.
This is not only problem/bug report - but some kind of comparision plus
some toughts about possible problems :)
And can help somebody when searching the net for possible expectations :)
Also - dono better list where are the smartest people that know what is
going in kernel with networking :)
Next time i will place summary on top - sorry :)
Tested HW (FORWARDING HOST):
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6132 CPU @ 2.60GHz
Interesting, I've not heard about a Intel CPU called "Gold" before now,
but it does exist:
https://ark.intel.com/products/123541/Intel-Xeon-Gold-6132-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_60-GHz
Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection (rev 01)
This is one of my all time favorite NICs!
Yes this is a good NIC - will have connectx-4 2x100G by monday so will also
do some tests
Test diagram:
TRAFFIC GENERATOR (ethX) -> (enp216s0f0 - RX Traffic) FORWARDING HOST
(enp216s0f1(vlan1000) - TX Traffic) -> (ethY) SINK
Forwarder traffic: UDP random ports from 9 to 19 with random hosts from
172.16.0.1 to 172.16.0.255
TRAFFIC GENERATOR TX is stable 9.9Mpps (in kernel pktgen)
What kind of traffic flow? E.g. distribution, many/few source IPs...
Traffic generator is pktgen so udp flows - better paste parameters from
pktgen:
UDP_MIN=9
UDP_MAX=19
pg_set $dev "dst_min 172.16.0.1"
pg_set $dev "dst_max 172.16.0.100"
# Setup random UDP port src range
#pg_set $dev "flag UDPSRC_RND"
pg_set $dev "flag UDPSRC_RND"
pg_set $dev "udp_src_min $UDP_MIN"
pg_set $dev "udp_src_max $UDP_MAX"
Settings used for FORWARDING HOST (changed param. was only number of RSS
combined queues + set affinity assignment for them to fit with first
numa node where 2x10G port card is installed)
ixgbe driver used from kernel (in-kernel build - not a module)
Nice with a script showing you setup, thanks. I would be good if it had
comments, telling why you think this is a needed setup adjustment.
#!/bin/sh
ifc='enp216s0f0 enp216s0f1'
for i in $ifc
do
ip link set up dev $i
ethtool -A $i autoneg off rx off tx off
Good:
Turning off Ethernet flow control, to avoid receiver being the
bottleneck via pause-frames.
Yes - enabled flow controll is really bad :)
ethtool -G $i rx 4096 tx 1024
You adjust the RX and TX ring queue sizes, this have effects that you
don't realize. Especially for the ixgbe driver, which have a page
recycle trick tied to the RX ring queue size.
rx ring 4096 and tx ring 1024
- this is because have best performance then with average packet size from
64 to 1500 bytes
The problem is this has huge negative effects on the CPU caches.
Generally less is more. When I perform tests I will usually drop the
ring size for Tx to 128 and Rx to 256. That reduces the descriptor
caches per ring to 1 page each for the Tx and Rx. With an increased
interrupt rate you should be able to service this optimally without
too much issue.
Also for these type of tests the Tx ring never really gets over 64
packets anyway since a single Tx ring is always populated by a single
Rx ring so as long as there isn't any flow control in play the Tx
queue should always be empty when the Rx clean-up begins and it will
only be populated with up to NAPI poll weight worth of packets.
Will check different ring sizes also to compare this.
Can be a little better performance for smaller frames like 64 - with rx ring
set to 1024
below 1 core/1 RSS queue with rx ring set to 1024
0;1;64;1530112;91772160;1529919;88724208
1;1;64;1531584;91872000;1531520;88813196
2;1;64;1531392;91895040;1531262;88831930
3;1;64;1530880;91875840;1531201;88783558
4;1;64;1530688;91829760;1530688;88768826
5;1;64;1530432;91810560;1530624;88764940
6;1;64;1530880;91868160;1530878;88787328
7;1;64;1530496;91845120;1530560;88765114
8;1;64;1530496;91837440;1530687;88772538
9;1;64;1530176;91795200;1530496;88735360
so from 1.47Mpps to 1.53Mpps
But with bigger packets > 200 performance is better when rx is set to 4096
This is likely due to the interrupt moderation on the adapter. Instead
of adjusting the ring size up you might try pushing the time between
interrupts down. I have generally found around 25 usecs is best. You
can change the rx-usecs value via ethtool -C to get the rate you want.
You should find that it will perform better that way since you put
less stress on the CPU caches.
ip link set $i txqueuelen 1000
Setting tx queue len to the default 1000 seems redundant.
Yes cause i'm changing this parameter also to see if any impact on
performance we have
ethtool -C $i rx-usecs 10
Adjusting this also have effects you might not realize. This actually
also affect the page recycle scheme of ixgbe. And can sometimes be
used to solve stalling on DMA TX completions, which could be you issue
here.
same here - rx-usecs - setting to 10 was kind of compromise to have good
performance with big ans small packet sizes
>From my personal experience I can say that 10 is probably too
aggressive. The logic for trying to find an ideal interrupt rate for
these kind of tests is actually pretty simple. What you want to do is
have the updates coming fast enough that you never hit the point of
descriptor starvation, but at the same time you don't want them coming
too quickly otherwise you limit how many descriptors can be coalesced
into a single PCI DMA write since the descriptors have to be flushed
when an interrupt is triggered.
Same test as above with rx ring 1024 tx ring 1024 and rxusecs set to 256
(1Core/1RSS queue):
0;1;64;1506304;90424320;1506626;87402868
1;1;64;1505536;90343680;1504830;87321088
2;1;64;1506880;90416640;1507522;87388120
3;1;64;1511040;90700800;1511682;87684864
4;1;64;1511040;90681600;1511102;87662476
5;1;64;1511488;90712320;1511614;87673728
6;1;64;1511296;90700800;1511038;87669900
7;1;64;1513344;90773760;1513280;87751680
8;1;64;1513536;90850560;1513470;87807360
9;1;64;1512128;90696960;1512000;87696000
And rx-usecs set to 1
0;1;64;1533632;92037120;1533504;88954368
1;1;64;1533632;92006400;1533570;88943348
2;1;64;1533504;91994880;1533504;88931980
3;1;64;1532864;91979520;1532674;88902516
4;1;64;1533952;92044800;1534080;88961792
5;1;64;1533888;92048640;1534270;88969100
6;1;64;1533952;92037120;1534082;88969216
7;1;64;1533952;92021760;1534208;88969332
8;1;64;1533056;91983360;1532930;88883724
9;1;64;1533760;92021760;1533886;88946828
rx-useck set to 2
0;1;64;1522432;91334400;1522304;88301056
1;1;64;1521920;91330560;1522496;88286208
2;1;64;1522496;91322880;1522432;88304768
3;1;64;1523456;91422720;1523649;88382762
4;1;64;1527680;91676160;1527424;88601728
5;1;64;1527104;91626240;1526912;88572032
6;1;64;1527424;91641600;1527424;88590592
7;1;64;1526336;91572480;1526912;88523776
8;1;64;1527040;91637760;1526912;88579456
9;1;64;1527040;91595520;1526784;88553472
rx-usecs set to 3
0;1;64;1526272;91549440;1526592;88527488
1;1;64;1526528;91560960;1526272;88516352
2;1;64;1525952;91580160;1525888;88527488
3;1;64;1525504;91511040;1524864;88456960
4;1;64;1526272;91568640;1526208;88494080
5;1;64;1525568;91545600;1525312;88494080
6;1;64;1526144;91584000;1526080;88512640
7;1;64;1525376;91530240;1525376;88482944
8;1;64;1526784;91607040;1526592;88549760
9;1;64;1526208;91560960;1526528;88512640
ethtool -L $i combined 16
ethtool -K $i gro on tso on gso off sg on l2-fwd-offload off
tx-nocache-copy on ntuple on
Here are many setting above.
Yes mostly NIC defaults besides the ntuple that is on (for testing some nfc
drop filters - and trying to test also tc-offload )
GRO/GSO/TSO for _forwarding_ is actually bad... in my tests, enabling
this result in approx 10% slowdown.
Ok lets give a try :)
gro off tso off gso off sg on l2-fwd-offload off tx-nocache-copy on ntuple
on
rx-usecs 10
1 CPU / 1 RSS QUEUE
0;1;64;1609344;96537600;1609279;93327104
1;1;64;1608320;96514560;1608256;93293812
2;1;64;1608000;96487680;1608125;93267770
3;1;64;1608320;96522240;1608576;93297524
4;1;64;1605888;96387840;1606211;93148986
5;1;64;1601472;96072960;1601600;92870644
6;1;64;1602624;96180480;1602243;92959674
7;1;64;1601728;96107520;1602113;92907764
8;1;64;1602176;96122880;1602176;92933806
9;1;64;1603904;96253440;1603777;93045208
A little better performance 1.6Mpps
But wondering if disabling tso will have no performance impact for tcp
traffic ...
If you were passing TCP traffic through the router GRO/TSO would
impact things, but for UDP it just adds overhead.
Will try to get some pktgen like pktgen-dpdk that can generate also tcp
traffic - to compare this.
AFAIK "tx-nocache-copy on" was also determined to be a bad option.
I set this to on cause i have better performance (a little 10kpps for this
test)
below same test as above with tx-nocache-copy off
0;1;64;1591552;95496960;1591230;92313654
1;1;64;1596224;95738880;1595842;92555066
2;1;64;1595456;95700480;1595201;92521774
3;1;64;1595456;95723520;1595072;92528966
4;1;64;1595136;95692800;1595457;92503040
5;1;64;1594624;95631360;1594496;92473402
6;1;64;1596224;95761920;1595778;92551180
7;1;64;1595200;95700480;1595331;92521542
8;1;64;1595584;95692800;1595457;92521426
9;1;64;1594624;95662080;1594048;92469574
If I recall it should have no actual impact one way or the other. The
tx-nocache-copy option should only impact socket traffic, not routing
since if I recall correctly it only impacts copies from userspace.
The "ntuple on" AFAIK disables the flow-director in the NIC. I though
this would actually help VLAN traffic, but I guess not.
yes I enabled this cause was thinking that can help with traffic on vlans
below same test with ntuple off
so all settings for ixgbe:
gro off tso off gso off sg on l2-fwd-offload off tx-nocache-copy off ntuple
off
rx-usecs 10
rx-flow-hash udp4 sdfn
0;1;64;1611840;96691200;1611905;93460794
1;1;64;1610688;96645120;1610818;93427328
2;1;64;1610752;96668160;1610497;93442176
3;1;64;1610624;96664320;1610817;93427212
4;1;64;1610752;96652800;1610623;93412480
5;1;64;1610048;96614400;1610112;93404940
6;1;64;1611264;96641280;1611390;93427212
7;1;64;1611008;96691200;1610942;93468160
8;1;64;1610048;96652800;1609984;93408652
9;1;64;1611136;96641280;1610690;93434636
Performance is a little better
and now with tx-nocache-copy on
0;1;64;1597248;95834880;1597311;92644096
1;1;64;1597888;95865600;1597824;92677446
2;1;64;1597952;95834880;1597822;92644038
3;1;64;1597568;95877120;1597375;92685044
4;1;64;1597184;95827200;1597314;92629190
5;1;64;1597696;95842560;1597565;92625652
6;1;64;1597312;95834880;1597376;92644038
7;1;64;1597568;95873280;1597634;92647924
8;1;64;1598400;95919360;1598849;92699602
9;1;64;1597824;95873280;1598208;92684928
That is weird - so enabling tx-nocache-copy with disabled ntuple have bad
performance impact - but with enabled ntuple there is no performance impact
I would leave the ntuple feature enabled if you are routing simply
because that disables the ixgbe feature ATR which can have a negative
impact on routing tests (causes reordering).
ethtool -N $i rx-flow-hash udp4 sdfn
Why do you change the NICs flow-hash?
whan used 16 cores / 16 rss queues - there was better load distribution over
all cores when sdfn rx-flow-hash enabled
That is to be expected. The default hash will only has on IPv4
addresses. Enabling the use of UDP ports would allow for more entropy.
If you want similar performance without resorting to hashing on ports
you would have to change the source/destination IP addresses.
done
ip link set up dev enp216s0f0
ip link set up dev enp216s0f1
ip a a 10.0.0.1/30 dev enp216s0f0
ip link add link enp216s0f1 name vlan1000 type vlan id 1000
ip link set up dev vlan1000
ip a a 10.0.0.5/30 dev vlan1000
ip route add 172.16.0.0/12 via 10.0.0.6
./set_irq_affinity.sh -x 14-27,42-43 enp216s0f0
./set_irq_affinity.sh -x 14-27,42-43 enp216s0f1
#cat /sys/devices/system/node/node1/cpulist
#14-27,42-55
#cat /sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpulist
#0-13,28-41
Is this a NUMA system?
This is 2x CPU 6132 - so have two separate pcie access to the nic - need to
check what cpu is assigned to pcie where network card is connected to have
network card on local cpu where all irq's are binded
#################################################
Looks like forwarding performance when using vlans on ixgbe is less that
without vlans for about 30-40% (wondering if this is some vlan
offloading problem and ixgbe)
I would see this as a problem/bug that enabling VLANs cost this much.
Yes - was thinking that with tx/rx vlan offloading there will be not much
performance impact when vlans used.
What is the rate difference? Also did you account for the header size
when noticing that there is a difference in rates? I just want to make
sure we aren't seen an issue where you are expecting a rate of
14.88Mpps when VLAN tags drop the rate due to header overhead down to
something like 14.2Mpps if I recall correctly.
As reply above - the difference is
With vlan: 7Mpps (100%cpu on 16Cores with 16RSS queues)
Without vlan: 10Mpps (70% cpu load on 16Cores with 16RSS queues)
So this is really big difference.
settings below:
ethtool -k enp216s0f0
Features for enp216s0f0:
Cannot get device udp-fragmentation-offload settings: Operation not
supported
rx-checksumming: on
tx-checksumming: on
tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-sctp: on
scatter-gather: on
tx-scatter-gather: on
tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
tcp-segmentation-offload: on
tx-tcp-segmentation: on
tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: on
tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
udp-fragmentation-offload: off
generic-segmentation-offload: off
generic-receive-offload: on
large-receive-offload: off
rx-vlan-offload: on
tx-vlan-offload: on
ntuple-filters: on
receive-hashing: on
highdma: on [fixed]
rx-vlan-filter: on
vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
tx-lockless: off [fixed]
netns-local: off [fixed]
tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-gre-segmentation: on
tx-gre-csum-segmentation: on
tx-ipxip4-segmentation: on
tx-ipxip6-segmentation: on
tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: on
tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: on
tx-gso-partial: on
tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-esp-segmentation: off [fixed]
fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
tx-nocache-copy: on
loopback: off [fixed]
rx-fcs: off [fixed]
rx-all: off
tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
l2-fwd-offload: off
hw-tc-offload: off
esp-hw-offload: off [fixed]
esp-tx-csum-hw-offload: off [fixed]
rx-udp_tunnel-port-offload: on
Another thing is that forwarding performance does not scale with number
of cores when 7+ cores are reached
I've seen problems with using Hyper-Threading CPUs. Could it be that
above 7 CPUs you are starting to use sibling-cores ?
I would suspect that it may be more than likely the case. One thing
you might look at doing is CPU pinning the interrupts for the NIC in a
1:1 fashion so that the queues are all bound to separate cores without
them sharing between Hyper-threads.
Turbostats can help here:
Package Core CPU Avg_MHz Busy% Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz IRQ SMI C1
C2 C1% C2% CPU%c1 CPU%c6 CoreTmp PkgTmp PkgWatt RAMWatt
PKG_% RAM_%
- - - 72 2.27 3188 2600 194844 0 64
69282 0.07 97.83 18.38 79.36 -4 54 123.49 16.08 0.00
0.00
0 0 0 8 0.74 1028 2600 1513 0 32
1462 1.50 97.99 10.92 88.34 47 51 58.34 5.34 0.00
0.00
0 0 28 7 0.67 1015 2600 1255 0 12
1249 0.96 98.61 10.99
0 1 1 7 0.68 1019 2600 1260 0 0
1260 0.00 99.54 8.44 90.88 49
0 1 29 9 0.71 1208 2600 1252 0 0
1253 0.00 99.48 8.41
0 2 2 7 0.67 1019 2600 1261 0 0
1260 0.00 99.54 8.44 90.89 48
0 2 30 7 0.67 1017 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.44
0 3 3 7 0.68 1019 2600 1260 0 0
1259 0.00 99.53 8.46 90.86 -4
0 3 31 7 0.67 1017 2600 1256 0 0
1256 0.00 99.55 8.46
0 4 4 7 0.67 1027 2600 1260 0 0
1260 0.00 99.54 8.43 90.90 -4
0 4 32 7 0.66 1018 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.44
0 5 5 7 0.68 1020 2600 1260 0 0
1257 0.00 99.54 8.44 90.89 50
0 5 33 7 0.68 1019 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.43
0 6 6 7 0.70 1019 2600 1260 0 0
1259 0.00 99.53 8.43 90.87 -4
0 6 34 7 0.70 1019 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.54 8.43
0 8 7 7 0.68 1019 2600 1262 0 0
1261 0.00 99.52 8.42 90.90 50
0 8 35 7 0.67 1019 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.43
0 9 8 7 0.68 1019 2600 1260 0 0
1257 0.00 99.54 8.40 90.92 49
0 9 36 7 0.66 1017 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.41
0 10 9 7 0.66 1018 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.54 8.40 90.94 -4
0 10 37 7 0.66 1018 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.55 8.41
0 11 10 7 0.66 1019 2600 1257 0 0
1259 0.00 99.54 8.56 90.77 -4
0 11 38 7 0.66 1018 2600 1255 0 3
1252 0.19 99.36 8.57
0 12 11 7 0.67 1019 2600 1260 0 0
1260 0.00 99.54 8.44 90.88 -4
0 12 39 7 0.67 1019 2600 1255 0 0
1256 0.00 99.55 8.44
0 13 12 7 0.68 1019 2600 1257 0 4
1254 0.32 99.22 8.67 90.65 -4
0 13 40 7 0.69 1019 2600 1256 0 4
1253 0.24 99.31 8.66
0 14 13 7 0.71 1020 2600 1260 0 0
1259 0.00 99.53 8.41 90.88 -4
0 14 41 7 0.72 1020 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.54 8.40
1 0 14 3564 99.19 3594 2600 125472 0 0
0 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 54 54 65.15 10.74 0.00
0.00
1 0 42 3 0.07 3701 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.95 99.93
1 1 15 11 0.32 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.37 73.31 42
1 1 43 10 0.31 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.38
1 2 16 10 0.31 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.37 73.32 39
1 2 44 10 0.32 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.36
1 3 17 10 0.32 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.40 73.28 39
1 3 45 11 0.32 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.81 26.40
1 4 18 10 0.32 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.82 26.40 73.28 40
1 4 46 11 0.32 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.40
1 5 19 11 0.33 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.40 73.27 39
1 5 47 11 0.33 3300 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.40
1 6 20 12 0.35 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.38 73.27 42
1 6 48 12 0.36 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.81 26.37
1 8 21 11 0.33 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.82 26.37 73.29 42
1 8 49 11 0.33 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.38
1 9 22 10 0.32 3300 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.82 26.35 73.34 41
1 9 50 10 0.30 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.36
1 10 23 10 0.31 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.82 26.37 73.33 41
1 10 51 10 0.31 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1255 0.00 99.82 26.36
1 11 24 10 0.32 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.62 73.06 41
1 11 52 10 0.32 3301 2600 1255 0 4
1251 0.32 99.50 26.62
1 12 25 11 0.33 3301 2600 1257 0 0
1257 0.00 99.81 26.39 73.28 41
1 12 53 11 0.33 3301 2600 1258 0 0
1254 0.00 99.82 26.38
1 13 26 12 0.36 3317 2600 1259 0 0
1258 0.00 99.79 26.41 73.23 39
1 13 54 11 0.34 3301 2600 1255 0 0
1254 0.00 99.82 26.42
1 14 27 12 0.36 3301 2600 1257 0 5
1251 0.24 99.58 26.54 73.10 41
1 14 55 12 0.36 3300 2600 1255 0 0
1254 0.00 99.82 26.54
So it looks like in all tests i'm using core+sibling
But side effect of this is that :
33 * 100.0 = 3300.0 MHz max turbo 28 active cores
33 * 100.0 = 3300.0 MHz max turbo 24 active cores
33 * 100.0 = 3300.0 MHz max turbo 20 active cores
33 * 100.0 = 3300.0 MHz max turbo 14 active cores
34 * 100.0 = 3400.0 MHz max turbo 12 active cores
34 * 100.0 = 3400.0 MHz max turbo 8 active cores
35 * 100.0 = 3500.0 MHz max turbo 4 active cores
37 * 100.0 = 3700.0 MHz max turbo 2 active cores
So more cores = less MHz per core/sibling
Yes that is always a trade off. Also the ixgbe is limited in terms of
PCIe bus bandwidth. The more queues you add the worse the descriptor
overhead will be. Generally I have found that about 6 queues is ideal.
As you start getting to more than 8 the performance for 64B packets
will start to drop off as each additional queue will hurt the
descriptor cache performance as it starts writing back fewer and fewer
descriptors per write which will increase the PCIe bus overhead for
the writes.
perf top:
PerfTop: 77835 irqs/sec kernel:99.7% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz
cycles], (all, 56 CPUs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.32% [kernel] [k] skb_dst_force
16.30% [kernel] [k] dst_release
15.11% [kernel] [k] rt_cache_valid
12.62% [kernel] [k] ipv4_mtu
It seems a little strange that these 4 functions are on the top
Yes dono why there is ipv4_mtu called and taking soo much cycles
5.60% [kernel] [k] do_raw_spin_lock
Why is calling/taking this lock? (Use perf call-graph recording).
can be hard to paste it here:)
attached file
3.03% [kernel] [k] fib_table_lookup
2.70% [kernel] [k] ip_finish_output2
2.10% [kernel] [k] dev_gro_receive
1.89% [kernel] [k] eth_type_trans
1.81% [kernel] [k] ixgbe_poll
1.15% [kernel] [k] ixgbe_xmit_frame_ring
1.06% [kernel] [k] __build_skb
1.04% [kernel] [k] __dev_queue_xmit
0.97% [kernel] [k] ip_rcv
0.78% [kernel] [k] netif_skb_features
0.74% [kernel] [k] ipt_do_table
Unloading netfilter modules, will give more performance, but it
semifake to do so.
Compiled in kernel - only in filter mode - with ipv4+ipv6 - no other modules
conntrack or other .
0.70% [kernel] [k] acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter
0.64% [kernel] [k] ip_forward
0.59% [kernel] [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
0.55% [kernel] [k] dev_hard_start_xmit
0.53% [kernel] [k] ip_route_input_rcu
0.53% [kernel] [k] ip_rcv_finish
0.51% [kernel] [k] page_frag_free
0.50% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc
0.50% [kernel] [k] udp_v4_early_demux
0.44% [kernel] [k] skb_release_data
0.42% [kernel] [k] inet_gro_receive
0.40% [kernel] [k] sch_direct_xmit
0.39% [kernel] [k] __local_bh_enable_ip
0.33% [kernel] [k] netdev_pick_tx
0.33% [kernel] [k] validate_xmit_skb
0.28% [kernel] [k] fib_validate_source
0.27% [kernel] [k] deliver_ptype_list_skb
0.25% [kernel] [k] eth_header
0.23% [kernel] [k] get_dma_ops
0.22% [kernel] [k] skb_network_protocol
0.21% [kernel] [k] ip_output
0.21% [kernel] [k] vlan_dev_hard_start_xmit
0.20% [kernel] [k] ixgbe_alloc_rx_buffers
0.18% [kernel] [k] nf_hook_slow
0.18% [kernel] [k] apic_timer_interrupt
0.18% [kernel] [k] virt_to_head_page
0.18% [kernel] [k] build_skb
0.16% [kernel] [k] swiotlb_map_page
0.16% [kernel] [k] ip_finish_output
0.16% [kernel] [k] udp4_gro_receive
RESULTS:
CSV format - delimeter ";"
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;1;64;1470912;88247040;1470720;85305530
1;1;64;1470912;88285440;1470977;85335110
2;1;64;1470464;88247040;1470402;85290508
3;1;64;1471424;88262400;1471230;85353728
4;1;64;1468736;88166400;1468672;85201652
5;1;64;1470016;88181760;1469949;85234944
6;1;64;1470720;88247040;1470466;85290624
7;1;64;1471232;88277760;1471167;85346246
8;1;64;1469184;88170240;1469249;85216326
9;1;64;1470592;88227840;1470847;85294394
Single core 1.47Mpps seems a little low, I would expect 2Mpps.
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;2;64;2413120;144802560;2413245;139975924
1;2;64;2415296;144913920;2415356;140098188
2;2;64;2416768;144898560;2416573;140105670
3;2;64;2418176;145056000;2418110;140261806
4;2;64;2416512;144990720;2416509;140172950
5;2;64;2415168;144860160;2414466;140064780
6;2;64;2416960;144983040;2416833;140190930
7;2;64;2413632;144768000;2413568;140001734
8;2;64;2415296;144898560;2414589;140087168
9;2;64;2416576;144963840;2416892;140190930
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;3;64;3419008;205155840;3418882;198239244
1;3;64;3428032;205585920;3427971;198744234
2;3;64;3425472;205536000;3425344;198677260
3;3;64;3425088;205470720;3425156;198603136
4;3;64;3427648;205693440;3426883;198773888
5;3;64;3426880;205670400;3427392;198796044
6;3;64;3429120;205678080;3430140;198848186
7;3;64;3422976;205355520;3423490;198458136
8;3;64;3423168;205336320;3423486;198495372
9;3;64;3424384;205493760;3425538;198617868
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;4;64;4406464;264364800;4405244;255560296
1;4;64;4404672;264349440;4405122;255541504
2;4;64;4402368;264049920;4403326;255188864
3;4;64;4401344;264076800;4400702;255207134
4;4;64;4385536;263074560;4386620;254312716
5;4;64;4386560;263189760;4385404;254379532
6;4;64;4398784;263857920;4399031;255025288
7;4;64;4407232;264445440;4407998;255637900
8;4;64;4413184;264698880;4413758;255875816
9;4;64;4411328;264526080;4411906;255712372
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;5;64;5094464;305871360;5094464;295657262
1;5;64;5090816;305514240;5091201;295274810
2;5;64;5088384;305387520;5089792;295175108
3;5;64;5079296;304869120;5079484;294680368
4;5;64;5092992;305544960;5094207;295349166
5;5;64;5092416;305502720;5093372;295334260
6;5;64;5080896;304896000;5081090;294677004
7;5;64;5085376;305114880;5086401;294933058
8;5;64;5092544;305575680;5092036;295356938
9;5;64;5093056;305652480;5093832;295449506
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;6;64;5705088;342351360;5705784;330965110
1;6;64;5710272;342743040;5707591;331373952
2;6;64;5703424;342182400;5701826;330776552
3;6;64;5708736;342604800;5707963;331147462
4;6;64;5710144;342654720;5712067;331202910
5;6;64;5712064;342777600;5711361;331292288
6;6;64;5710144;342585600;5708607;331144272
7;6;64;5699840;342021120;5697853;330609222
8;6;64;5701184;342124800;5702909;330653592
9;6;64;5711360;342735360;5713283;331247686
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;7;64;6244416;374603520;6243591;362180072
1;7;64;6230912;374016000;6231490;361534126
2;7;64;6244800;374776320;6244866;362224326
3;7;64;6238720;374376960;6238261;361838510
4;7;64;6218816;373079040;6220413;360683962
5;7;64;6224320;373566720;6225086;361017404
6;7;64;6224000;373570560;6221370;360936088
7;7;64;6210048;372741120;6210627;360212654
8;7;64;6231616;374035200;6231537;361445502
9;7;64;6227840;373724160;6228802;361162752
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;8;64;6251840;375144960;6251849;362609678
1;8;64;6250816;375014400;6250881;362547038
2;8;64;6257728;375432960;6257160;362911104
3;8;64;6255552;375325440;6255622;362822074
4;8;64;6243776;374576640;6243270;362120622
5;8;64;6237184;374296320;6237690;361790080
6;8;64;6240960;374415360;6240714;361927366
7;8;64;6222784;373317120;6223746;360854424
8;8;64;6225920;373593600;6227014;361154980
9;8;64;6238528;374304000;6237701;361845238
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;14;64;6486144;389184000;6486135;376236488
1;14;64;6454912;387390720;6454222;374466734
2;14;64;6441152;386480640;6440431;373572780
3;14;64;6450240;386972160;6450870;374070014
4;14;64;6465600;387997440;6467221;375089654
5;14;64;6448384;386860800;6448000;373980230
6;14;64;6452352;387095040;6452148;374168904
7;14;64;6441984;386507520;6443203;373665058
8;14;64;6456704;387340800;6455744;374429092
9;14;64;6464640;387901440;6465218;374949004
ID;CPU_CORES / RSS QUEUES;PKT_SIZE;PPS_RX;BPS_RX;PPS_TX;BPS_TX
0;16;64;6939008;416325120;6938696;402411192
1;16;64;6941952;416444160;6941745;402558918
2;16;64;6960576;417584640;6960707;403698718
3;16;64;6940736;416486400;6941820;402503876
4;16;64;6927680;415741440;6927420;401853870
5;16;64;6929792;415687680;6929917;401839196
6;16;64;6950400;416989440;6950661;403026166
7;16;64;6953664;417216000;6953454;403260544
8;16;64;6948480;416851200;6948800;403023266
9;16;64;6924160;415422720;6924092;401542468
I've seen Linux scale beyond 6.9Mpps, thus I also see this as an
issue/bug. You could be stalling on DMA TX completion being too slow,
but you already increased the interval and increased the TX ring queue
size. You could play with those setting and see if it changes this?
Could you try my napi_monitor tool in:
https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/tree/master/kernel/samples/bpf
Also provide the output from:
mpstat -P ALL -u -I SCPU -I SUM 2
with 16 cores / 16 RSS queues
Average: CPU %usr %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal
%guest %gnice %idle
Average: all 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.00
0.00 0.00 71.42
Average: 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.88
Average: 1 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.88
Average: 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 11 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.88
Average: 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 28 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.96
Average: 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 39 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.96
Average: 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Average: 44 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 99.79
Average: 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: 55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 100.00
Average: CPU intr/s
Average: all 123596.08
Average: 0 646.38
Average: 1 500.54
Average: 2 511.67
Average: 3 534.25
Average: 4 542.21
Average: 5 531.54
Average: 6 554.58
Average: 7 535.88
Average: 8 544.58
Average: 9 536.42
Average: 10 575.46
Average: 11 601.12
Average: 12 502.08
Average: 13 575.46
Average: 14 5917.92
Average: 15 5949.58
Average: 16 7021.29
Average: 17 7299.71
Average: 18 7391.67
Average: 19 7354.25
Average: 20 7543.42
Average: 21 7354.25
Average: 22 7322.33
Average: 23 7368.71
Average: 24 7429.00
Average: 25 7406.46
Average: 26 7400.67
Average: 27 7447.21
Average: 28 517.00
Average: 29 549.54
Average: 30 529.33
Average: 31 533.83
Average: 32 541.25
Average: 33 541.17
Average: 34 532.50
Average: 35 545.17
Average: 36 528.96
Average: 37 509.92
Average: 38 520.12
Average: 39 523.29
Average: 40 530.75
Average: 41 542.33
Average: 42 5921.71
Average: 43 5949.42
Average: 44 503.04
Average: 45 542.75
Average: 46 582.50
Average: 47 581.71
Average: 48 495.29
Average: 49 524.38
Average: 50 527.92
Average: 51 528.12
Average: 52 456.38
Average: 53 477.00
Average: 54 440.92
Average: 55 568.83
Average: CPU HI/s TIMER/s NET_TX/s NET_RX/s BLOCK/s
IRQ_POLL/s TASKLET/s SCHED/s HRTIMER/s RCU/s
Average: 0 0.00 250.00 0.17 87.00 0.00 0.00
45.46 250.00 0.00 13.75
Average: 1 0.00 233.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 17.21
Average: 2 0.00 249.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 12.67
Average: 3 0.00 249.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 34.42
Average: 4 0.00 248.67 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 43.42
Average: 5 0.00 249.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 32.17
Average: 6 0.00 249.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.87 0.00 54.92
Average: 7 0.00 240.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 45.79
Average: 8 0.00 247.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 47.25
Average: 9 0.00 249.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 37.17
Average: 10 0.00 248.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 76.79
Average: 11 0.00 249.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
42.79 249.83 0.00 59.21
Average: 12 0.00 249.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 2.29
Average: 13 0.00 249.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 75.62
Average: 14 0.00 148.21 0.17 5758.04 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.42 0.00 3.08
Average: 15 0.00 148.42 0.46 5789.25 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.33 0.00 3.12
Average: 16 0.00 142.62 0.79 6866.46 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.29 0.00 3.12
Average: 17 0.00 143.17 0.42 7145.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.08 0.00 3.04
Average: 18 0.00 153.62 0.42 7226.42 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.04 0.00 3.17
Average: 19 0.00 150.46 0.46 7192.21 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.04 0.00 3.08
Average: 20 0.00 145.21 0.17 7386.50 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.29 0.00 3.25
Average: 21 0.00 150.96 0.46 7191.37 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.25 0.00 3.21
Average: 22 0.00 146.67 0.54 7163.96 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.04 0.00 3.12
Average: 23 0.00 151.38 0.42 7205.75 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.00 0.00 3.17
Average: 24 0.00 153.33 0.17 7264.12 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.08 0.00 3.29
Average: 25 0.00 153.21 0.17 7241.83 0.00 0.00
0.00 7.96 0.00 3.29
Average: 26 0.00 153.96 0.17 7234.88 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.38 0.00 3.29
Average: 27 0.00 151.71 0.79 7283.25 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.04 0.00 3.42
Average: 28 0.00 245.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.50 0.00 21.79
Average: 29 0.00 233.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.87 0.00 66.46
Average: 30 0.00 248.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 250.00 0.00 30.42
Average: 31 0.00 249.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 33.96
Average: 32 0.00 248.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 42.62
Average: 33 0.00 249.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 41.79
Average: 34 0.00 249.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.87 0.00 32.83
Average: 35 0.00 240.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 55.08
Average: 36 0.00 247.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 31.58
Average: 37 0.00 249.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 10.71
Average: 38 0.00 248.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.87 0.00 21.50
Average: 39 0.00 249.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.83 0.00 23.96
Average: 40 0.00 249.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.96 0.00 30.96
Average: 41 0.00 249.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.92 0.00 42.50
Average: 42 0.00 148.38 0.71 5761.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.25 0.00 3.38
Average: 43 0.00 147.21 0.50 5790.33 0.00 0.00
0.00 8.00 0.00 3.38
Average: 44 0.00 248.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.13 0.00 5.96
Average: 45 0.00 249.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.88 0.00 44.83
Average: 46 0.00 248.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.58 0.00 84.96
Average: 47 0.00 249.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.75 0.00 83.96
Average: 48 0.00 249.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 132.83 0.00 113.33
Average: 49 0.00 249.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.62 0.00 26.62
Average: 50 0.00 248.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.58 0.00 30.42
Average: 51 0.00 249.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.42 0.00 30.63
Average: 52 0.00 249.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 131.96 0.00 75.21
Average: 53 0.00 249.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 136.12 0.00 91.79
Average: 54 0.00 249.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 136.79 0.00 55.12
Average: 55 0.00 249.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 248.71 0.00 71.08
