Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:03:25 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Babak Farrokhi <farrokhi@freebsd.org>, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@ipfw.ru>, =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=C3=A9?= <olivier@cochard.me>, "freebsd@intel.com" <freebsd@intel.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Jev_Bj=C3=B6rsell?= <jev@sippysoft.com>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Poor high-PPS performance of the 10G ixgbe(9) NIC/driver in FreeBSD 10.1 Message-ID: <CAH7qZfujwHU-bbuv6cA21PP2Lswo9C9KCkPVs6-vp-51igSjgw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BhQ2%2Bi37JzeUh8drxLSeeXHzYaRH9ZXvFyMBpF0XLHoiMSXMg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAH7qZft-CZCKv_7E9PE%2B4ZN3EExhezMnAb3kvShQzYhRYb2jMg@mail.gmail.com> <77171439377164@web21h.yandex.ru> <55CB2F18.40902@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2BhQ2%2Bi37JzeUh8drxLSeeXHzYaRH9ZXvFyMBpF0XLHoiMSXMg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ok, so my current settings are: hw.ix.max_interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue0.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue1.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue2.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue3.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue4.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.queue5.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue0.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue1.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue2.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue3.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue4.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.1.queue5.interrupt_rate: 20000 dev.ix.0.enable_aim: 0 dev.ix.1.enable_aim: 0 dev.ix.2.enable_aim: 0 dev.ix.3.enable_aim: 0 hw.ix.num_queues:6 We also happen to have I210-based system with only 4 hardware queues, it would be interesting to see how it stacks up. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> wrote: > As I was telling to maxim, you should disable aim because it only matches > the max interrupt rate to the average packet size, which is the last thin= g > you want. > > Setting the interrupt rate with sysctl (one per queue) gives you precise > control on the max rate and (hence, extra latency). 20k interrupts/s give > you 50us of latency, and the 2k slots in the queue are still enough to > absorb a burst of min-sized frames hitting a single queue (the os will > start dropping long before that level, but that's another story). > > Cheers > Luigi > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Babak Farrokhi <farrokhi@freebsd.org> > wrote: > >> I ran into the same problem with almost the same hardware (Intel X520) >> on 10-STABLE. HT/SMT is disabled and cards are configured with 8 queues, >> with the same sysctl tunings as sobomax@ did. I am not using lagg, no >> FLOWTABLE. >> >> I experimented with pmcstat (RESOURCE_STALLS) a while ago and here [1] >> [2] you can see the results, including pmc output, callchain, flamegraph >> and gprof output. >> >> I am experiencing huge number of interrupts with 200kpps load: >> >> # sysctl dev.ix | grep interrupt_rate >> dev.ix.1.queue7.interrupt_rate: 125000 >> dev.ix.1.queue6.interrupt_rate: 6329 >> dev.ix.1.queue5.interrupt_rate: 500000 >> dev.ix.1.queue4.interrupt_rate: 100000 >> dev.ix.1.queue3.interrupt_rate: 50000 >> dev.ix.1.queue2.interrupt_rate: 500000 >> dev.ix.1.queue1.interrupt_rate: 500000 >> dev.ix.1.queue0.interrupt_rate: 100000 >> dev.ix.0.queue7.interrupt_rate: 500000 >> dev.ix.0.queue6.interrupt_rate: 6097 >> dev.ix.0.queue5.interrupt_rate: 10204 >> dev.ix.0.queue4.interrupt_rate: 5208 >> dev.ix.0.queue3.interrupt_rate: 5208 >> dev.ix.0.queue2.interrupt_rate: 71428 >> dev.ix.0.queue1.interrupt_rate: 5494 >> dev.ix.0.queue0.interrupt_rate: 6250 >> >> [1] http://farrokhi.net/~farrokhi/pmc/6/ >> [2] http://farrokhi.net/~farrokhi/pmc/7/ >> >> Regards, >> Babak >> >> >> Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> > 12.08.2015, 02:28, "Maxim Sobolev" <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>: >> >> Olivier, keep in mind that we are not "kernel forwarding" packets, bu= t >> "app >> >> forwarding", i.e. the packet goes full way >> >> net->kernel->recvfrom->app->sendto->kernel->net, which is why we have >> much >> >> lower PPS limits and which is why I think we are actually benefiting >> from >> >> the extra queues. Single-thread sendto() in a loop is CPU-bound at >> about >> >> 220K PPS, and while running the test I am observing that outbound >> traffic >> >> from one thread is mapped into a specific queue (well, pair of queues >> on >> >> two separate adaptors, due to lagg load balancing action). And the pe= ak >> >> performance of that test is at 7 threads, which I believe corresponds >> to >> >> the number of queues. We have plenty of CPU cores in the box (24) wit= h >> >> HTT/SMT disabled and one CPU is mapped to a specific queue. This >> leaves us >> >> with at least 8 CPUs fully capable of running our app. If you look at >> the >> >> CPU utilization, we are at about 10% when the issue hits. >> > >> > In any case, it would be great if you could provide some profiling inf= o >> since there could be >> > plenty of problematic places starting from TX rings contention to some >> locks inside udp or even >> > (in)famous random entropy harvester.. >> > e.g. something like pmcstat -TS instructions -w1 might be sufficient t= o >> determine the reason >> >> ix0: <Intel(R) PRO/10GbE PCI-Express Network Driver, Version - 2.5.15= > >> port >> >> 0x6020-0x603f mem 0xc7c00000-0xc7dfffff,0xc7e04000-0xc7e07fff irq 40 = at >> >> device 0.0 on pci3 >> >> ix0: Using MSIX interrupts with 9 vectors >> >> ix0: Bound queue 0 to cpu 0 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 1 to cpu 1 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 2 to cpu 2 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 3 to cpu 3 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 4 to cpu 4 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 5 to cpu 5 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 6 to cpu 6 >> >> ix0: Bound queue 7 to cpu 7 >> >> ix0: Ethernet address: 0c:c4:7a:5e:be:64 >> >> ix0: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8 >> >> 001.000008 [2705] netmap_attach success for ix0 tx 8/4096 rx >> >> 8/4096 queues/slots >> >> ix1: <Intel(R) PRO/10GbE PCI-Express Network Driver, Version - 2.5.15= > >> port >> >> 0x6000-0x601f mem 0xc7a00000-0xc7bfffff,0xc7e00000-0xc7e03fff irq 44 = at >> >> device 0.1 on pci3 >> >> ix1: Using MSIX interrupts with 9 vectors >> >> ix1: Bound queue 0 to cpu 8 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 1 to cpu 9 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 2 to cpu 10 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 3 to cpu 11 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 4 to cpu 12 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 5 to cpu 13 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 6 to cpu 14 >> >> ix1: Bound queue 7 to cpu 15 >> >> ix1: Ethernet address: 0c:c4:7a:5e:be:65 >> >> ix1: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8 >> >> 001.000009 [2705] netmap_attach success for ix1 tx 8/4096 rx >> >> 8/4096 queues/slots >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labb=C3=A9 < >> olivier@cochard.me> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.or= g >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> =E2=80=8BHi, >> >>> =E2=80=8B >> >>> >> >>>> We've trying to migrate some of our high-PPS systems to a new >> hardware >> >>>> that >> >>>> has four X540-AT2 10G NICs and observed that interrupt time goes >> through >> >>>> roof after we cross around 200K PPS in and 200K out (two ports in >> LACP). >> >>>> The previous hardware was stable up to about 350K PPS in and 350K >> out. I >> >>>> believe the old one was equipped with the I350 and had the >> identical LACP >> >>>> configuration. The new box also has better CPU with more cores >> (i.e. 24 >> >>>> cores vs. 16 cores before). CPU itself is 2 x E5-2690 v3. >> >>> =E2=80=8B200K PPS, and even 350K PPS are very low value indeed. >> >>> On a Intel Xeon L5630 (4 cores only) with one X540-AT2=E2=80=8B >> >>> >> >>> =E2=80=8B(then 2 10Gigabit ports)=E2=80=8B I've reached about 1.8Mp= ps (fastforwarding >> >>> enabled) [1]. >> >>> But my setup didn't use lagg(4): Can you disable lagg configuration >> and >> >>> re-measure your performance without lagg ? >> >>> >> >>> Do you let Intel NIC drivers using 8 queues for port too? >> >>> In my use case (forwarding smallest UDP packet size), I obtain bett= er >> >>> behaviour by limiting NIC queues to 4 (hw.ix.num_queues or >> >>> hw.ixgbe.num_queues, don't remember) if my system had 8 cores. And >> this >> >>> with Gigabit Intel[2] or Chelsio NIC [3]. >> >>> >> >>> Don't forget to disable TSO and LRO too. >> >>> >> >>> =E2=80=8BRegards, >> >>> >> >>> Olivier >> >>> >> >>> [1] >> >>> >> http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_an= _ibm_system_x3550_m3_with_10-gigabit_intel_x540-at2#graphs >> >>> [2] >> >>> >> http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_= superserver_5018a-ftn4#graph1 >> >>> [3] >> >>> >> http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_= hp_proliant_dl360p_gen8_with_10-gigabit_with_10-gigabit_chelsio_t540-cr#red= ucing_nic_queues >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > -- > -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- > Prof. Luigi RIZZO, rizzo@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione > http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa > TEL +39-050-2217533 . via Diotisalvi 2 > Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy) > -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- > > --=20 Maksym Sobolyev Sippy Software, Inc. Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts Tel (Canada): +1-778-783-0474 Tel (Toll-Free): +1-855-747-7779 Fax: +1-866-857-6942 Web: http://www.sippysoft.com MSN: sales@sippysoft.com Skype: SippySoft
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAH7qZfujwHU-bbuv6cA21PP2Lswo9C9KCkPVs6-vp-51igSjgw>