On 11/13/2015 05:20 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 11/12/2015 08:02 PM, Felipe Franciosi wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you >> try any other values? > I've also tried 20us. And results shows 50us was better in: > > - very small packet tx (e.g 64bytes at most 46% improvement) > - TCP_RR (at most 11% improvement) > > But I will test bigger values. In fact, for net itself, we can be even > more aggressive: make vhost poll forever but I haven't tired this. > >> Also, did you measure how polling affects many VMs talking to each other >> (e.g. 20 VMs on each host, perhaps with several vNICs each, transmitting to >> a corresponding VM/vNIC pair on another host)? > Not yet, in my todo list. > >> >> On a complete separate experiment (busy waiting on storage I/O rings on >> Xen), I have observed that bigger timeouts gave bigger benefits. On the >> other hand, all cases that contended for CPU were badly hurt with any sort >> of polling. >> >> The cases that contended for CPU consisted of many VMs generating workload >> over very fast I/O devices (in that case, several NVMe devices on a single >> host). And the metric that got affected was aggregate throughput from all >> VMs. >> >> The solution was to determine whether to poll depending on the host's >> overall CPU utilisation at that moment. That gave me the best of both worlds >> as polling made everything faster without slowing down any other metric. > You mean a threshold and exit polling when it exceeds this? I use a > simpler method: just exit the busy loop when there's more than one > processes is in running state. I test this method in the past for socket > busy read (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1997531) > which seems can solve the issue. But haven't tested this for vhost > polling. Will run some simple test (e.g pin two vhost threads in one > host cpu), and see how well it perform. > > Thanks
Run simple test like: - starting two VMs, each vm has one vcpu - pin both two vhost threads of VMs to cpu 0 - pin vcpu0 of VM1 to cpu1 - pin vcpu0 of VM2 to cpu2 Try two TCP_RR netperf tests in parallell: /busy loop timeouts/trate1+trate2/-+%/ /no busy loop/13966.76+13987.31/+0%/ /20us/14097.89+14088.82/+0.08%) /50us/15103.98+15103.73/+8.06%/ Busy loop can still give improvements even if two vhost threads are contending one cpu on host. > >> Thanks, >> Felipe >> >> >> >> On 12/11/2015 10:20, "kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org on behalf of Jason Wang" >> <kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org on behalf of jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/12/2015 06:16 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> This series tries to add basic busy polling for vhost net. The idea is >>>> simple: at the end of tx/rx processing, busy polling for new tx added >>>> descriptor and rx receive socket for a while. The maximum number of >>>> time (in us) could be spent on busy polling was specified ioctl. >>>> >>>> Test were done through: >>>> >>>> - 50 us as busy loop timeout >>>> - Netperf 2.6 >>>> - Two machines with back to back connected ixgbe >>>> - Guest with 1 vcpu and 1 queue >>>> >>>> Results: >>>> - For stream workload, ioexits were reduced dramatically in medium >>>> size (1024-2048) of tx (at most -39%) and almost all rx (at most >>>> -79%) as a result of polling. This compensate for the possible >>>> wasted cpu cycles more or less. That porbably why we can still see >>>> some increasing in the normalized throughput in some cases. >>>> - Throughput of tx were increased (at most 105%) expect for the huge >>>> write (16384). And we can send more packets in the case (+tpkts were >>>> increased). >>>> - Very minor rx regression in some cases. >>>> - Improvemnt on TCP_RR (at most 16%). >>> Forget to mention, the following test results by order are: >>> >>> 1) Guest TX >>> 2) Guest RX >>> 3) TCP_RR >>> >>>> size/session/+thu%/+normalize%/+tpkts%/+rpkts%/+ioexits%/ >>>> 64/ 1/ +9%/ -17%/ +5%/ +10%/ -2% >>>> 64/ 2/ +8%/ -18%/ +6%/ +10%/ -1% >>>> 64/ 4/ +4%/ -21%/ +6%/ +10%/ -1% >>>> 64/ 8/ +9%/ -17%/ +6%/ +9%/ -2% >>>> 256/ 1/ +20%/ -1%/ +15%/ +11%/ -9% >>>> 256/ 2/ +15%/ -6%/ +15%/ +8%/ -8% >>>> 256/ 4/ +17%/ -4%/ +16%/ +8%/ -8% >>>> 256/ 8/ -61%/ -69%/ +16%/ +10%/ -10% >>>> 512/ 1/ +15%/ -3%/ +19%/ +18%/ -11% >>>> 512/ 2/ +19%/ 0%/ +19%/ +13%/ -10% >>>> 512/ 4/ +18%/ -2%/ +18%/ +15%/ -10% >>>> 512/ 8/ +17%/ -1%/ +18%/ +15%/ -11% >>>> 1024/ 1/ +25%/ +4%/ +27%/ +16%/ -21% >>>> 1024/ 2/ +28%/ +8%/ +25%/ +15%/ -22% >>>> 1024/ 4/ +25%/ +5%/ +25%/ +14%/ -21% >>>> 1024/ 8/ +27%/ +7%/ +25%/ +16%/ -21% >>>> 2048/ 1/ +32%/ +12%/ +31%/ +22%/ -38% >>>> 2048/ 2/ +33%/ +12%/ +30%/ +23%/ -36% >>>> 2048/ 4/ +31%/ +10%/ +31%/ +24%/ -37% >>>> 2048/ 8/ +105%/ +75%/ +33%/ +23%/ -39% >>>> 16384/ 1/ 0%/ -14%/ +2%/ 0%/ +19% >>>> 16384/ 2/ 0%/ -13%/ +19%/ -13%/ +17% >>>> 16384/ 4/ 0%/ -12%/ +3%/ 0%/ +2% >>>> 16384/ 8/ 0%/ -11%/ -2%/ +1%/ +1% >>>> size/session/+thu%/+normalize%/+tpkts%/+rpkts%/+ioexits%/ >>>> 64/ 1/ -7%/ -23%/ +4%/ +6%/ -74% >>>> 64/ 2/ -2%/ -12%/ +2%/ +2%/ -55% >>>> 64/ 4/ +2%/ -5%/ +10%/ -2%/ -43% >>>> 64/ 8/ -5%/ -5%/ +11%/ -34%/ -59% >>>> 256/ 1/ -6%/ -16%/ +9%/ +11%/ -60% >>>> 256/ 2/ +3%/ -4%/ +6%/ -3%/ -28% >>>> 256/ 4/ 0%/ -5%/ -9%/ -9%/ -10% >>>> 256/ 8/ -3%/ -6%/ -12%/ -9%/ -40% >>>> 512/ 1/ -4%/ -17%/ -10%/ +21%/ -34% >>>> 512/ 2/ 0%/ -9%/ -14%/ -3%/ -30% >>>> 512/ 4/ 0%/ -4%/ -18%/ -12%/ -4% >>>> 512/ 8/ -1%/ -4%/ -1%/ -5%/ +4% >>>> 1024/ 1/ 0%/ -16%/ +12%/ +11%/ -10% >>>> 1024/ 2/ 0%/ -11%/ 0%/ +5%/ -31% >>>> 1024/ 4/ 0%/ -4%/ -7%/ +1%/ -22% >>>> 1024/ 8/ -5%/ -6%/ -17%/ -29%/ -79% >>>> 2048/ 1/ 0%/ -16%/ +1%/ +9%/ -10% >>>> 2048/ 2/ 0%/ -12%/ +7%/ +9%/ -26% >>>> 2048/ 4/ 0%/ -7%/ -4%/ +3%/ -64% >>>> 2048/ 8/ -1%/ -5%/ -6%/ +4%/ -20% >>>> 16384/ 1/ 0%/ -12%/ +11%/ +7%/ -20% >>>> 16384/ 2/ 0%/ -7%/ +1%/ +5%/ -26% >>>> 16384/ 4/ 0%/ -5%/ +12%/ +22%/ -23% >>>> 16384/ 8/ 0%/ -1%/ -8%/ +5%/ -3% >>>> size/session/+thu%/+normalize%/+tpkts%/+rpkts%/+ioexits%/ >>>> 1/ 1/ +9%/ -29%/ +9%/ +9%/ +9% >>>> 1/ 25/ +6%/ -18%/ +6%/ +6%/ -1% >>>> 1/ 50/ +6%/ -19%/ +5%/ +5%/ -2% >>>> 1/ 100/ +5%/ -19%/ +4%/ +4%/ -3% >>>> 64/ 1/ +10%/ -28%/ +10%/ +10%/ +10% >>>> 64/ 25/ +8%/ -18%/ +7%/ +7%/ -2% >>>> 64/ 50/ +8%/ -17%/ +8%/ +8%/ -1% >>>> 64/ 100/ +8%/ -17%/ +8%/ +8%/ -1% >>>> 256/ 1/ +10%/ -28%/ +10%/ +10%/ +10% >>>> 256/ 25/ +15%/ -13%/ +15%/ +15%/ 0% >>>> 256/ 50/ +16%/ -14%/ +18%/ +18%/ +2% >>>> 256/ 100/ +15%/ -13%/ +12%/ +12%/ -2% >>>> >>>> Changes from V2: >>>> - poll also at the end of rx handling >>>> - factor out the polling logic and optimize the code a little bit >>>> - add two ioctls to get and set the busy poll timeout >>>> - test on ixgbe (which can give more stable and reproducable numbers) >>>> instead of mlx4. >>>> >>>> Changes from V1: >>>> - Add a comment for vhost_has_work() to explain why it could be >>>> lockless >>>> - Add param description for busyloop_timeout >>>> - Split out the busy polling logic into a new helper >>>> - Check and exit the loop when there's a pending signal >>>> - Disable preemption during busy looping to make sure lock_clock() was >>>> correctly used. >>>> >>>> Jason Wang (3): >>>> vhost: introduce vhost_has_work() >>>> vhost: introduce vhost_vq_more_avail() >>>> vhost_net: basic polling support >>>> >>>> drivers/vhost/net.c | 77 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 3 ++ >>>> include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 11 +++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in >>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a��� >> 0��h��i > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
