Virtualization - Jul 2018 - [PATCH vhost] vhost_net: Fix too many vring kick on busypoll

On 2018/07/02 15:17, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2018?07?02? 12:37, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>> On 2018/07/02 11:54, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2018?07?02? 10:45, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>
>>>> On 2018/06/29 18:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2018?06?29? 16:09, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> To fix this, poll the work instead of enabling
notification when
>>>>>> busypoll is interrupted by something. IMHO
signal_pending() and
>>>>>> vhost_has_work() are kind of interruptions rather than
signals to
>>>>>> completely cancel the busypoll, so let's run
busypoll after the
>>>>>> necessary work is done. In order to avoid too long
busyloop due to
>>>>>> interruption, save the endtime in vq field and use it
when reentering
>>>>>> the work function.
>>>>> I think we don't care long busyloop unless e.g tx can
starve rx?
>>>> I just want to keep it user-controllable. Unless memorizing it
busypoll
>>>> can run unexpectedly long.
>>> I think the total amount of time for busy polling is bounded. If I
was
>>> wrong, it should be a bug somewhere.
>> Consider this kind of scenario:
>> 0. Set 100us busypoll for example.
>> 1. handle_tx() runs busypoll.
>> 2. Something like zerocopy queues tx_work within 100us.
>> 3. busypoll exits and call handle_tx() again.
>> 4. Repeat 1-3.
>>
>> In this case handle_tx() does not process packets but busypoll
>> essentially runs beyond 100us without endtime memorized. This may be
>> just a theoretical problem, but I was worried that more code to poll tx
>> queue can be added in the future and it becomes realistic.
> 
> Yes, but consider zerocopy tends to batch 16 used packets and we will
> finally finish all processing of packets. The above won't be endless,
so
> it was probably tolerable.
Right. So endtime memorization is more like a future-proof thing.
Would you like to keep it or change something?
>>>>>> Performance numbers:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server.
>>>>>> ??????
[Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)-->
>>>>>> [Server]
>>>>> Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is enabled, we
are in fact
>>>>> use the generic XDP datapath?
>>>> For some reason zerocopy was not applied for most packets, so
in most
>>>> cases driver XDP was used. I was going to dig into it but not
yet.
>>> Right, just to confirm this. This is expected.
>>>
>>> In tuntap, we do native XDP only for small and non zerocopy
packets. See
>>> tun_can_build_skb(). The reason is XDP may adjust packet header
which is
>>> not supported by zercopy. We can only use XDP generic for zerocopy
in
>>> this case.
>> I think I understand when driver XDP can be used. What I'm not sure
and
>> was going to narrow down is why zerocopy is mostly not applied.
>>
> 
> I see, any touch to the zerocopy packet (clone, header expansion or
> segmentation) that lead a userspace copy will increase the error counter
> in vhost_net. Then vhost_net_tx_select_zcopy() may choose not to use
> zerocopy. So it was probably something in your setup or a bug somewhere.
Thanks for the hint!

-- 
Toshiaki Makita

On 2018?07?02? 15:11, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2018/07/02 15:17, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018?07?02? 12:37, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>> On 2018/07/02 11:54, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018?07?02? 10:45, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018/06/29 18:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018?06?29? 16:09, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> To fix this, poll the work instead of enabling
notification when
>>>>>>> busypoll is interrupted by something. IMHO
signal_pending() and
>>>>>>> vhost_has_work() are kind of interruptions rather
than signals to
>>>>>>> completely cancel the busypoll, so let's run
busypoll after the
>>>>>>> necessary work is done. In order to avoid too long
busyloop due to
>>>>>>> interruption, save the endtime in vq field and use
it when reentering
>>>>>>> the work function.
>>>>>> I think we don't care long busyloop unless e.g tx
can starve rx?
>>>>> I just want to keep it user-controllable. Unless memorizing
it busypoll
>>>>> can run unexpectedly long.
>>>> I think the total amount of time for busy polling is bounded.
If I was
>>>> wrong, it should be a bug somewhere.
>>> Consider this kind of scenario:
>>> 0. Set 100us busypoll for example.
>>> 1. handle_tx() runs busypoll.
>>> 2. Something like zerocopy queues tx_work within 100us.
>>> 3. busypoll exits and call handle_tx() again.
>>> 4. Repeat 1-3.
>>>
>>> In this case handle_tx() does not process packets but busypoll
>>> essentially runs beyond 100us without endtime memorized. This may
be
>>> just a theoretical problem, but I was worried that more code to
poll tx
>>> queue can be added in the future and it becomes realistic.
>> Yes, but consider zerocopy tends to batch 16 used packets and we will
>> finally finish all processing of packets. The above won't be
endless, so
>> it was probably tolerable.
> Right. So endtime memorization is more like a future-proof thing.
> Would you like to keep it or change something?
I think we'd better introduce it only when we meet real bugs.

Thanks
>
>>>>>>> Performance numbers:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical
server.
>>>>>>>  ??????
[Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)-->
>>>>>>> [Server]
>>>>>> Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is enabled,
we are in fact
>>>>>> use the generic XDP datapath?
>>>>> For some reason zerocopy was not applied for most packets,
so in most
>>>>> cases driver XDP was used. I was going to dig into it but
not yet.
>>>> Right, just to confirm this. This is expected.
>>>>
>>>> In tuntap, we do native XDP only for small and non zerocopy
packets. See
>>>> tun_can_build_skb(). The reason is XDP may adjust packet header
which is
>>>> not supported by zercopy. We can only use XDP generic for
zerocopy in
>>>> this case.
>>> I think I understand when driver XDP can be used. What I'm not
sure and
>>> was going to narrow down is why zerocopy is mostly not applied.
>>>
>> I see, any touch to the zerocopy packet (clone, header expansion or
>> segmentation) that lead a userspace copy will increase the error
counter
>> in vhost_net. Then vhost_net_tx_select_zcopy() may choose not to use
>> zerocopy. So it was probably something in your setup or a bug
somewhere.
> Thanks for the hint!
>

On 2018/07/02 16:52, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2018?07?02? 15:11, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>> On 2018/07/02 15:17, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2018?07?02? 12:37, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>> On 2018/07/02 11:54, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2018?07?02? 10:45, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018/06/29 18:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018?06?29? 16:09, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> To fix this, poll the work instead of enabling
notification when
>>>>>>>> busypoll is interrupted by something. IMHO
signal_pending() and
>>>>>>>> vhost_has_work() are kind of interruptions
rather than signals to
>>>>>>>> completely cancel the busypoll, so let's
run busypoll after the
>>>>>>>> necessary work is done. In order to avoid too
long busyloop due to
>>>>>>>> interruption, save the endtime in vq field and
use it when
>>>>>>>> reentering
>>>>>>>> the work function.
>>>>>>> I think we don't care long busyloop unless e.g
tx can starve rx?
>>>>>> I just want to keep it user-controllable. Unless
memorizing it
>>>>>> busypoll
>>>>>> can run unexpectedly long.
>>>>> I think the total amount of time for busy polling is
bounded. If I was
>>>>> wrong, it should be a bug somewhere.
>>>> Consider this kind of scenario:
>>>> 0. Set 100us busypoll for example.
>>>> 1. handle_tx() runs busypoll.
>>>> 2. Something like zerocopy queues tx_work within 100us.
>>>> 3. busypoll exits and call handle_tx() again.
>>>> 4. Repeat 1-3.
>>>>
>>>> In this case handle_tx() does not process packets but busypoll
>>>> essentially runs beyond 100us without endtime memorized. This
may be
>>>> just a theoretical problem, but I was worried that more code to
poll tx
>>>> queue can be added in the future and it becomes realistic.
>>> Yes, but consider zerocopy tends to batch 16 used packets and we
will
>>> finally finish all processing of packets. The above won't be
endless, so
>>> it was probably tolerable.
>> Right. So endtime memorization is more like a future-proof thing.
>> Would you like to keep it or change something?
> 
> I think we'd better introduce it only when we meet real bugs.
I'll change it to a flag to indicate the previous busypoll is interrupted.
>>>>>>>> Performance numbers:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical
server.
>>>>>>>> ???????
[Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)-->
>>>>>>>> [Server]
>>>>>>> Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is
enabled, we are in
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> use the generic XDP datapath?
>>>>>> For some reason zerocopy was not applied for most
packets, so in most
>>>>>> cases driver XDP was used. I was going to dig into it
but not yet.
>>>>> Right, just to confirm this. This is expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> In tuntap, we do native XDP only for small and non zerocopy
>>>>> packets. See
>>>>> tun_can_build_skb(). The reason is XDP may adjust packet
header
>>>>> which is
>>>>> not supported by zercopy. We can only use XDP generic for
zerocopy in
>>>>> this case.
>>>> I think I understand when driver XDP can be used. What I'm
not sure and
>>>> was going to narrow down is why zerocopy is mostly not applied.
>>>>
>>> I see, any touch to the zerocopy packet (clone, header expansion or
>>> segmentation) that lead a userspace copy will increase the error
counter
>>> in vhost_net. Then vhost_net_tx_select_zcopy() may choose not to
use
>>> zerocopy. So it was probably something in your setup or a bug
somewhere.
>> Thanks for the hint!
Seems zerocopy packets are always nonlinear and
netif_receive_generic_xdp() calls skb_linearize() in which
__pskb_pull_tail() calls skb_zcopy_clear(). Looks like tx_zcopy_err is
always counted when zerocopy is used with XDP in my env.

-- 
Toshiaki Makita