Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 05:10:26 +0000 From: Francois ten Krooden <ftk@Nanoteq.com> To: Marko Zec <zec@fer.hr> Cc: Vincenzo Maffione <vmaffione@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Jacques Fourie <jacques.fourie@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Vector Packet Processing (VPP) portability on FreeBSD Message-ID: <AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8DDBD@NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20210517192054.0907beea@x23> References: <AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8BECE@NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za> <91e21d18a4214af4898dd09f11144493@EX16-05.ad.unipi.it> <CA%2BhQ2%2BjQ2fh4TXz02mTxAHJkHBWzfNhd=yRqPG45E7Z4umAsKA@mail.gmail.com> <e778ca61766741b0950585f6b26d8fff@EX16-05.ad.unipi.it> <CA%2BhQ2%2BhzjT5%2BRXmUUV4PpkXkvgQEJb8JrLPY7LqteV9ixeM7Ew@mail.gmail.com> <AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8D386@NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za> <CALX0vxA3_eDRJmEGBak=e99nOrBkFYEmdnBHEY9JLTmT7tQ2vQ@mail.gmail.com> <AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8D3BB@NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za> <CA%2B_eA9iG=4nemZxM_yETxGTMMC-oXPtMZmWc9DCp%2BqJaCQt4=g@mail.gmail.com> <AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8D74A@NTQ-EXC.nanoteq.co.za> <20210517192054.0907beea@x23>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks will give these a shot. Yes we are working on FreeBSD 13.0 as there is some of the memory managemen= t functionality which is required. I suspected there might have been some impact with implementing iflib. On Monday, 17 May 2021 19:21, Marko Zec wrote: > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 09:53:25 +0000 > Francois ten Krooden <ftk@Nanoteq.com> wrote: > > > On 2021/05/16 09:22, Vincenzo Maffione wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > Yes, you are not using emulated netmap mode. > > > > > > In the test setup depicted here > > > https://github.com/ftk-ntq/vpp/wiki/VPP-throughput-using-netmap- > > > interfaces#test-setup > > > I think you should really try to replace VPP with the netmap > > > "bridge" application (tools/tools/netmap/bridge.c), and see what > > > numbers you get. > > > > > > You would run the application this way # bridge -i ix0 -i ix1 and > > > this will forward any traffic between ix0 and ix1 (in both > > > directions). > > > > > > These numbers would give you a better idea of where to look next > > > (e.g. VPP code improvements or system tuning such as NIC interrupts, > > > CPU binding, etc.). > > > > Thank you for the suggestion. > > I did run a test with the bridge this morning, and updated the results > > as well. +-------------+------------------+ > > | Packet Size | Throughput (pps) | > > +-------------+------------------+ > > | 64 bytes | 7.197 Mpps | > > | 128 bytes | 7.638 Mpps | > > | 512 bytes | 2.358 Mpps | > > | 1280 bytes | 964.915 kpps | > > | 1518 bytes | 815.239 kpps | > > +-------------+------------------+ > > I assume you're on 13.0 where netmap throughput is lower compared to > 11.x due to migration of most drivers to iflib (apparently increased > overhead) and different driver defaults. On 11.x I could move 10G line r= ate > from one ix to another at low CPU freqs, where on 13.x the CPU must be se= t > to max speed, and still can't do 14.88 Mpps. > > #1 thing which changed: default # of packets per ring dropped down from > 2048 (11.x) to 1024 (13.x). Try changing this in /boot/loader.conf: > > dev.ixl.0.iflib.override_nrxds=3D2048 > dev.ixl.0.iflib.override_ntxds=3D2048 > dev.ixl.1.iflib.override_nrxds=3D2048 > dev.ixl.1.iflib.override_ntxds=3D2048 > etc. > > For me this increases the throughput of > bridge -i netmap:ixl0 -i netmap:ixl1 > from 9.3 Mpps to 11.4 Mpps > > #2: default interrupt moderation delays seem to be too long. Combined wi= th > increasing the ring sizes, reducing dev.ixl.0.rx_itr from 62 > (default) to 40 increases the throughput further from 11.4 to 14.5 Mpps > > Hope this helps, > > Marko > > > > Besides for the 64-byte and 128-byte packets the other sizes where > > matching the maximum rates possible on 10Gbps. This was when the > > bridge application was running on a single core, and the cpu core was > > maxing out at a 100%. > > > > I think there might be a bit of system tuning needed, but I suspect > > most of the improvement would be needed in VPP. > > > > Regards > > Francois > Important Notice: This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Nanoteq (Pty) Ltd e-mail le= gal notice available at: http://www.nanoteq.com/AboutUs/EmailDisclaimer.aspx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AB9BB4D903F59549B2E27CC033B964D6C4F8DDBD>