On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:33:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/5/10 下午8:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > While I was testing this new series (v2) I discovered an huge use of memory > > and a memory leak in the virtio-vsock driver in the guest when I sent > > 1-byte packets to the guest. > > > > These issues are present since the introduction of the virtio-vsock > > driver. I added the patches 1 and 2 to fix them in this series in order > > to better track the performance trends. > > > > v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10885431/ > > > > v2: > > - Add patch 1 to limit the memory usage > > - Add patch 2 to avoid memory leak during the socket release > > - Add patch 3 to fix locking of fwd_cnt and buf_alloc > > - Patch 4: fix 'free_space' type (u32 instead of s64) [Stefan] > > - Patch 5: Avoid integer underflow of iov_len [Stefan] > > - Patch 5: Fix packet capture in order to see the exact packets that are > > delivered. [Stefan] > > - Add patch 8 to make the RX buffer size tunable [Stefan] > > > > Below are the benchmarks step by step. I used iperf3 [1] modified with VSOCK > > support. > > As Micheal suggested in the v1, I booted host and guest with 'nosmap', and I > > added a column with virtio-net+vhost-net performance. > > > > A brief description of patches: > > - Patches 1+2: limit the memory usage with an extra copy and avoid memory > > leak > > - Patches 3+4: fix locking and reduce the number of credit update messages > > sent > > to the transmitter > > - Patches 5+6: allow the host to split packets on multiple buffers and use > > VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE as the max packet size allowed > > - Patches 7+8: increase RX buffer size to 64 KiB > > > > host -> guest [Gbps] > > pkt_size before opt p 1+2 p 3+4 p 5+6 p 7+8 virtio-net + > > vhost > > > > TCP_NODELAY > > 64 0.068 0.063 0.130 0.131 0.128 0.188 > > 0.187 > > 256 0.274 0.236 0.392 0.338 0.282 0.749 > > 0.654 > > 512 0.531 0.457 0.862 0.725 0.602 1.419 > > 1.414 > > 1K 0.954 0.827 1.591 1.598 1.548 2.599 > > 2.640 > > 2K 1.783 1.543 3.731 3.637 3.469 4.530 > > 4.754 > > 4K 3.332 3.436 7.164 7.124 6.494 7.738 > > 7.696 > > 8K 5.792 5.530 11.653 11.787 11.444 12.307 > > 11.850 > > 16K 8.405 8.462 16.372 16.855 17.562 16.936 > > 16.954 > > 32K 14.208 13.669 18.945 20.009 23.128 21.980 > > 23.015 > > 64K 21.082 18.893 20.266 20.903 30.622 27.290 > > 27.383 > > 128K 20.696 20.148 20.112 21.746 32.152 30.446 > > 30.990 > > 256K 20.801 20.589 20.725 22.685 34.721 33.151 > > 32.745 > > 512K 21.220 20.465 20.432 22.106 34.496 36.847 > > 31.096 > > > > guest -> host [Gbps] > > pkt_size before opt p 1+2 p 3+4 p 5+6 p 7+8 virtio-net + > > vhost > > > > TCP_NODELAY > > 64 0.089 0.091 0.120 0.115 0.117 0.274 > > 0.272 > > 256 0.352 0.354 0.452 0.445 0.451 1.085 > > 1.136 > > 512 0.705 0.704 0.893 0.858 0.898 2.131 > > 1.882 > > 1K 1.394 1.433 1.721 1.669 1.691 3.984 > > 3.576 > > 2K 2.818 2.874 3.316 3.249 3.303 6.719 > > 6.359 > > 4K 5.293 5.397 6.129 5.933 6.082 10.105 > > 9.860 > > 8K 8.890 9.151 10.990 10.545 10.519 15.239 > > 14.868 > > 16K 11.444 11.018 12.074 15.255 15.577 20.551 > > 20.848 > > 32K 11.229 10.875 10.857 24.401 25.227 26.294 > > 26.380 > > 64K 10.832 10.545 10.816 39.487 39.616 34.996 > > 32.041 > > 128K 10.435 10.241 10.500 39.813 40.012 38.379 > > 35.055 > > 256K 10.263 9.866 9.845 34.971 35.143 36.559 > > 37.232 > > 512K 10.224 10.060 10.092 35.469 34.627 34.963 > > 33.401 > > > > As Stefan suggested in the v1, this time I measured also the efficiency in > > this > > way: > > efficiency = Mbps / (%CPU_Host + %CPU_Guest) > > > > The '%CPU_Guest' is taken inside the VM. I know that it is not the best way, > > but it's provided for free from iperf3 and could be an indication. > > > > host -> guest efficiency [Mbps / (%CPU_Host + %CPU_Guest)] > > pkt_size before opt p 1+2 p 3+4 p 5+6 p 7+8 virtio-net + > > vhost > > > > TCP_NODELAY > > 64 0.94 0.59 3.96 4.06 4.09 2.82 > > 2.11 > > 256 2.62 2.50 6.45 6.09 5.81 9.64 > > 8.73 > > 512 5.16 4.87 13.16 12.39 11.67 17.83 > > 17.76 > > 1K 9.16 8.85 24.98 24.97 25.01 32.57 > > 32.04 > > 2K 17.41 17.03 49.09 48.59 49.22 55.31 > > 57.14 > > 4K 32.99 33.62 90.80 90.98 91.72 91.79 > > 91.40 > > 8K 58.51 59.98 153.53 170.83 167.31 137.51 > > 132.85 > > 16K 89.32 95.29 216.98 264.18 260.95 176.05 > > 176.05 > > 32K 152.94 167.10 285.75 387.02 360.81 215.49 > > 226.30 > > 64K 250.38 307.20 317.65 489.53 472.70 238.97 > > 244.27 > > 128K 327.99 335.24 335.76 523.71 486.41 253.29 > > 260.86 > > 256K 327.06 334.24 338.64 533.76 509.85 267.78 > > 266.22 > > 512K 337.36 330.61 334.95 512.90 496.35 280.42 > > 241.43 > > > > guest -> host efficiency [Mbps / (%CPU_Host + %CPU_Guest)] > > pkt_size before opt p 1+2 p 3+4 p 5+6 p 7+8 virtio-net + > > vhost > > > > TCP_NODELAY > > 64 0.90 0.91 1.37 1.32 1.35 2.15 > > 2.13 > > 256 3.59 3.55 5.23 5.19 5.29 8.50 > > 8.89 > > 512 7.19 7.08 10.21 9.95 10.38 16.74 > > 14.71 > > 1K 14.15 14.34 19.85 19.06 19.33 31.44 > > 28.11 > > 2K 28.44 29.09 37.78 37.18 37.49 53.07 > > 50.63 > > 4K 55.37 57.60 71.02 69.27 70.97 81.56 > > 79.32 > > 8K 105.58 100.45 111.95 124.68 123.61 120.85 > > 118.66 > > 16K 141.63 138.24 137.67 187.41 190.20 160.43 > > 163.00 > > 32K 147.56 143.09 138.48 296.41 301.04 214.64 > > 223.94 > > 64K 144.81 143.27 138.49 433.98 462.26 298.86 > > 269.71 > > 128K 150.14 147.99 146.85 511.36 514.29 350.17 > > 298.09 > > 256K 156.69 152.25 148.69 542.19 549.97 326.42 > > 333.32 > > 512K 157.29 153.35 152.22 546.52 533.24 315.55 > > 302.27 > > > > [1] https://github.com/stefano-garzarella/iperf/ > > > Hi: > > Do you have any explanation that vsock is better here? Is this because of > the mergeable buffer? If you, we need test with mrg_rxbuf=off. >
Hi Jason, I tried to disable the mergeable buffer but I had even worst performance with virtio-net. Do you think the differences could be related to the TCP/IP stack? Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
