On 2023/11/13 20:44, Yuri Benditovich wrote:


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 5:28 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>> wrote:

    On 2023/11/03 22:14, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
     >
     >
     > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 11:55 AM Akihiko Odaki
    <akihiko.od...@daynix.com <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
     > <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com
    <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>>> wrote:
     >
     >     On 2023/11/03 18:35, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
     >      >
     >      >
     >      > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 4:56 PM Akihiko Odaki
     >     <akihiko.od...@daynix.com <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
    <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>>
     >      > <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com
    <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
     >     <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com
    <mailto:akihiko.od...@daynix.com>>>> wrote:
     >      >
     >      >     On 2023/11/02 19:20, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
     >      >      >
     >      >      >
     >      >      > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:33 AM Michael S. Tsirkin
     >      >     <m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>
    <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>>
     >     <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>
    <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>>>
     >      >      > <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>
    <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>>
     >     <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>
    <mailto:m...@redhat.com <mailto:m...@redhat.com>>>>> wrote:
     >      >      >
     >      >      >     On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:09:27AM +0200, Yuri
     >     Benditovich wrote:
     >      >      >      > Probably we mix two different patches in this
     >     discussion.
     >      >      >      > Focusing on the patch in the e-mail header:
     >      >      >      >
     >      >      >      > IMO it is not acceptable to fail QEMU run
    for one
     >     feature
     >      >     that we
     >      >      >     can't make
     >      >      >      > active when we silently drop all other
    features in
     >     such a
     >      >     case.
     >      >      >
     >      >      >     If the feature is off by default then it seems more
     >     reasonable
     >      >      >     and silent masking can be seen as a bug.
     >      >      >     Most virtio features are on by default this is
    why it's
     >      >      >     reasonable to mask them.
     >      >      >
     >      >      >
     >      >      > If we are talking about RSS: setting it initially
    off is the
     >      >     development
     >      >      > time decision.
     >      >      > When it will be completely stable there is no reason to
     >     keep it
     >      >     off by
     >      >      > default, so this is more a question of time and of a
     >     readiness of
     >      >     libvirt.
     >      >
     >      >     It is not ok to make "on" the default; that will
    enable RSS
     >     even when
     >      >     eBPF steering support is not present and can result in
     >     performance
     >      >     degradation.
     >      >
     >      >
     >      > Exactly as it is today - with vhost=on the host does not
    suggest RSS
     >      > without  eBPF.
     >      > I do not understand what you call "performance
    degradation", can you
     >      > describe the scenario?
     >
     >     I was not clear, but I was talking about the case of
    vhost=off or peers
     >     other than tap (e.g., user). rss=on employs in-qemu RSS,
    which incurs
     >     overheads for such configurations.
     >
     >
     > So, vhost=off OR peers other than tap:
     >
     > In the case of peers other than tap (IMO) we're not talking about
     > performance at all.
     > Backends like "user" (without vnet_hdr) do not support _many_
     > performance-oriented features.
     > If RSS is somehow "supported" for such backends this is rather a
     > misunderstanding (IMO again).

    We do not need to ensure good performance when RSS is enabled by the
    guest for backends without eBPF steering program as you say. In-QEMU
    RSS
    is only useful for testing and not meant to improve the performance.

    However, if you set rss=on, QEMU will advertise the availability of RSS
    feature. The guest will have no mean to know if it's implemented in a
    way not performance-wise so it may decide to use the feature to improve
    the performance, which can result in performance degradation.
    Therefore,
    it's better not to set rss=on for such backends.


I still do not understand what is the scenario where you see or suspect the mentioned "performance degradation".
We can discuss whether such a problem exists as soon as you explain it.

The scenario is that:
- rss=on,
- A backend without eBPF steering support is in use, and
- The guest expects VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS has little overheads as hardware RSS implementations do.

I consider the risk of the performance degradation in such a situation is the reason why virtio-net emits a warning ("Can't load eBPF RSS - fallback to software RSS") when in-QEMU RSS is in use.

Reply via email to