Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:23:20 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@ipfw.ru>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Babak Farrokhi <farrokhi@freebsd.org>, "freebsd@intel.com" <freebsd@intel.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Jev_Bj=C3=B6rsell?= <jev@sippysoft.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=C3=A9?= <olivier@cochard.me> Subject: Re: Poor high-PPS performance of the 10G ixgbe(9) NIC/driver in FreeBSD 10.1 Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokoPn2vy2p6OPbcGi8QLPrrvLZbKWGdChkwjeF5Zh0c=Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAH7qZfuMhdHvO8w%2Bt9-3DbgsCMph8OCOoni7duYRerp6wO66Xw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAH7qZfuMhdHvO8w%2Bt9-3DbgsCMph8OCOoni7duYRerp6wO66Xw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Right, and for the ixgbe hardware? -a On 12 August 2015 at 08:05, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> wrote: > igb0@pci0:7:0:0: class=3D0x020000 card=3D0x153315d9 chip=3D0x15338= 086 > rev=3D0x03 hdr=3D0x00 > vendor =3D 'Intel Corporation' > device =3D 'I210 Gigabit Network Connection' > class =3D network > subclass =3D ethernet > igb1@pci0:8:0:0: class=3D0x020000 card=3D0x153315d9 chip=3D0x15338= 086 > rev=3D0x03 hdr=3D0x00 > vendor =3D 'Intel Corporation' > device =3D 'I210 Gigabit Network Connection' > class =3D network > subclass =3D ethernet > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com> > wrote: > >> 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 match= es >>> the max interrupt rate to the average packet size, which is the last th= ing >>> you want. >>> >>> Setting the interrupt rate with sysctl (one per queue) gives you precis= e >>> control on the max rate and (hence, extra latency). 20k interrupts/s gi= ve >>> 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 queue= s, >>>> 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, flamegra= ph >>>> 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, >>>> but "app >>>> >> forwarding", i.e. the packet goes full way >>>> >> net->kernel->recvfrom->app->sendto->kernel->net, which is why we ha= ve >>>> much >>>> >> lower PPS limits and which is why I think we are actually benefitin= g >>>> 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 queu= es >>>> on >>>> >> two separate adaptors, due to lagg load balancing action). And the >>>> peak >>>> >> performance of that test is at 7 threads, which I believe correspon= ds >>>> to >>>> >> the number of queues. We have plenty of CPU cores in the box (24) w= ith >>>> >> 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 >>>> info since there could be >>>> > plenty of problematic places starting from TX rings contention to so= me >>>> locks inside udp or even >>>> > (in)famous random entropy harvester.. >>>> > e.g. something like pmcstat -TS instructions -w1 might be sufficient >>>> to 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 4= 0 >>>> 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 4= 4 >>>> 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.org> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 i= n >>>> LACP). >>>> >>>> The previous hardware was stable up to about 350K PPS in and 350= K >>>> 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. >>>> >>> 200K PPS, and even 350K PPS are very low value indeed. >>>> >>> On a Intel Xeon L5630 (4 cores only) with one X540-AT2 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> (then 2 10Gigabit ports) I've reached about 1.8Mpps >>>> (fastforwarding >>>> >>> enabled) [1]. >>>> >>> But my setup didn't use lagg(4): Can you disable lagg configurati= on >>>> 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 >>>> better >>>> >>> 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. An= d >>>> this >>>> >>> with Gigabit Intel[2] or Chelsio NIC [3]. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Don't forget to disable TSO and LRO too. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 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#r= educing_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.o= rg >>>> " >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>>> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g" >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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'Informazion= e >>> http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa >>> TEL +39-050-2217533 . via Diotisalvi 2 >>> Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy) >>> -----------------------------------------+-----------------------------= -- >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokoPn2vy2p6OPbcGi8QLPrrvLZbKWGdChkwjeF5Zh0c=Q>