Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 0/5] virtio_net: enabling tx interrupts
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Date: 2014-12-02 09:43:30
Also in:
lkml, virtualization
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:15:02AM +0008, Jason Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Jason Wang [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
Hello: We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This breaks socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: - Byte Queue Limit depends on tx completion nofication to work. - Packet Generator depends on tx completion nofication for the last transmitted packet to complete. - TCP Small Queue depends on proper accounting of sk_wmem_alloc to work. This series tries to solve the issue by enabling tx interrupts. To minize the performance impacts of this, several optimizations were used: - In guest side, virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() was used to delay the tx interrupt untile 3/4 pending packets were sent. - In host side, interrupt coalescing were used to reduce tx interrupts. Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for small packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and other optimization for small packet transmission work after tx interrupt. But will use more cpu for large packets. - For TCP_RR, regression (10% on transaction rate and cpu utilization) were found. Tx interrupt won't help but cause overhead in this case. Using more aggressive coalescing parameters may help to reduce the regression.OK, you do have posted coalescing patches - does it help any?Helps a lot. For RX, it saves about 5% - 10% cpu. (reduce 60%-90% tx intrs) For small packet TX, it increases 33% - 245% throughput. (reduce about 60% inters) For TCP_RR, it increase the 3%-10% trans.rate. (reduce 40%-80% tx intrs)quoted
I'm not sure the regression is due to interrupts. It would make sense for CPU but why would it hurt transaction rate?Anyway guest need to take some cycles to handle tx interrupts. And transaction rate does increase if we coalesces more tx interurpts.quoted
It's possible that we are deferring kicks too much due to BQL. As an experiment: do we get any of it back if we do - if (kick || netif_xmit_stopped(txq)) - virtqueue_kick(sq->vq); + virtqueue_kick(sq->vq); ?I will try, but during TCP_RR, at most 1 packets were pending, I suspect if BQL can help in this case.Looks like this helps a lot in multiple sessions of TCP_RR.
so what's faster BQL + kick each packet no BQL ?
How about move the BQL patch out of this series? Let's first converge tx interrupt and then introduce it? (e.g with kicking after queuing X bytes?)
Sounds good.