Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200622122546-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAJaqyWfbouY4kEXkc6sYsbdCAEk0UNsS5xjqEdHTD7bcTn40Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJaqyWefMHPguj8ZGCuccTn0uyKxF9ZTEi2ASLtDSjGNb1Vwsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <419cc689-adae-7ba4-fe22-577b3986688c@redhat.com> <CAJaqyWedEg9TBkH1MxGP1AecYHD-e-=ugJ6XUN+CWb=rQGf49g@mail.gmail.com>
 <0a83aa03-8e3c-1271-82f5-4c07931edea3@redhat.com> <CAJaqyWeqF-KjFnXDWXJ2M3Hw3eQeCEE2-7p1KMLmMetMTm22DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200709133438-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <7dec8cc2-152c-83f4-aa45-8ef9c6aca56d@redhat.com>
 <CAJaqyWdLOH2EceTUduKYXCQUUNo1XQ1tLgjYHTBGhtdhBPHn_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200710015615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200710015615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:16:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJaqyWf1skGxrjuT9GLr6dtgd-433y-rCkbtStLHaAs2W2jYXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:58 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:39:26AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > > How about playing with the batch size? Make it a mod parameter instead
> > > > of the hard coded 64, and measure for all values 1 to 64 ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, according to the test result, 64 seems to be too aggressive in
> > > the case of TX.
> > >
> >
> > Got it, thanks both!
>
> In particular I wonder whether with batch size 1
> we get same performance as without batching
> (would indicate 64 is too aggressive)
> or not (would indicate one of the code changes
> affects performance in an unexpected way).
>
> --
> MST
>

Hi!

Varying batch_size as drivers/vhost/net.c:VHOST_NET_BATCH, and testing
the pps as previous mail says. This means that we have either only
vhost_net batching (in base testing, like previously to apply this
patch) or both batching sizes the same.

I've checked that vhost process (and pktgen) goes 100% cpu also.

For tx: Batching decrements always the performance, in all cases. Not
sure why bufapi made things better the last time.

Batching makes improvements until 64 bufs, I see increments of pps but like 1%.

For rx: Batching always improves performance. It seems that if we
batch little, bufapi decreases performance, but beyond 64, bufapi is
much better. The bufapi version keeps improving until I set a batching
of 1024. So I guess it is super good to have a bunch of buffers to
receive.

Since with this test I cannot disable event_idx or things like that,
what would be the next step for testing?

Thanks!

--
Results:
# Buf size: 1,16,32,64,128,256,512

# Tx
# ===
# Base
2293304.308,3396057.769,3540860.615,3636056.077,3332950.846,3694276.154,3689820
# Batch
2286723.857,3307191.643,3400346.571,3452527.786,3460766.857,3431042.5,3440722.286
# Batch + Bufapi
2257970.769,3151268.385,3260150.538,3379383.846,3424028.846,3433384.308,3385635.231,3406554.538

# Rx
# ==
# pktgen results (pps)
1223275,1668868,1728794,1769261,1808574,1837252,1846436
1456924,1797901,1831234,1868746,1877508,1931598,1936402
1368923,1719716,1794373,1865170,1884803,1916021,1975160

# Testpmd pps results
1222698.143,1670604,1731040.6,1769218,1811206,1839308.75,1848478.75
1450140.5,1799985.75,1834089.75,1871290,1880005.5,1934147.25,1939034
1370621,1721858,1796287.75,1866618.5,1885466.5,1918670.75,1976173.5,1988760.75,1978316

pktgen was run again for rx with 1024 and 2048 buf size, giving
1988760.75 and 1978316 pps. Testpmd goes the same way.