Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/7] multiqueue support for tun/tap
flat view
From: Sridhar Samudrala <hidden>
Date: 2011-08-13 00:46:36
Also in:
lkml, netdev, qemu-devel
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 09:54 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers, current single queue based tap can not satisfy the requirement of scaling guest network performance as the numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series implements multiple queue support in tun/tap. In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest version of Krishna's multi-queue virtio-net driver into this series to simplify the test. And for multiqueue supported qemu, you can refer the patches I post in http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg52808.html. Vhost is also a must to achieve high performance and its code could be used for multi-queue without modification. Alternatively, this series can be also used for Krishna's M:N implementation of multiqueue but I didn't test it. The idea is simple: each socket were abstracted as a queue for tun/tap, and userspace may open as many files as required and then attach them to the devices. In order to keep the ABI compatibility, device creation were still finished in TUNSETIFF, and two new ioctls TUNATTACHQUEUE and TUNDETACHQUEUE were added for user to manipulate the numbers of queues for the tun/tap.
Is it possible to have tap create these queues automatically when TUNSETIFF is called instead of having userspace to do the new ioctls. I am just wondering if it is possible to get multi-queue to be enabled without any changes to qemu. I guess the number of queues could be based on the number of vhost threads/guest virtio-net queues. Also, is it possible to enable multi-queue on the host alone without any guest virtio-net changes? Have you done any multiple TCP_RR/UDP_RR testing with small packet sizes? 256byte request/response with 50-100 instances?
I've done some basic performance testing of multi queue
tap. For tun, I just test it through vpnc.
Notes:
- Test shows improvement when receving packets from
local/external host to guest, and send big packet from guest
to local/external host.
- Current multiqueue based virtio-net/tap introduce a
regression of send small packet (512 byte) from guest to
local/external host. I suspect it's the issue of queue
selection in both guest driver and tap. Would continue to
investigate.
- I would post the perforamnce numbers as a reply of this
mail.
TODO:
- solve the issue of packet transmission of small packets.
- addressing the comments of virtio-net driver
- performance tunning
Please review and comment it, Thanks.
---
Jason Wang (5):
tuntap: move socket/sock related structures to tun_file
tuntap: categorize ioctl
tuntap: introduce multiqueue related flags
tuntap: multiqueue support
tuntap: add ioctls to attach or detach a file form tap device
Krishna Kumar (2):
Change virtqueue structure
virtio-net changes
drivers/net/tun.c | 738 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 578 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
drivers/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 10 -
include/linux/if_tun.h | 5
include/linux/virtio.h | 1
include/linux/virtio_net.h | 3
6 files changed, 867 insertions(+), 468 deletions(-)