Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] virtio: support packed ring

[Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:16:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:33:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018å09æ10æ 11:00, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:00:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:22:25AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 05:00:40PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > Are there still plans to test the performance with vost pmd?
> > > > > > > vhost doesn't seem to show a performance gain ...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > I tried some performance tests with vhost PMD. In guest, the
> > > > > > XDP program will return XDP_DROP directly. And in host, testpmd
> > > > > > will do txonly fwd.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > When burst size is 1 and packet size is 64 in testpmd and
> > > > > > testpmd needs to iterate 5 Tx queues (but only the first two
> > > > > > queues are enabled) to prepare and inject packets, I got ~12%
> > > > > > performance boost (5.7Mpps -> 6.4Mpps). And if the vhost PMD
> > > > > > is faster (e.g. just need to iterate the first two queues to
> > > > > > prepare and inject packets), then I got similar performance
> > > > > > for both rings (~9.9Mpps) (packed ring's performance can be
> > > > > > lower, because it's more complicated in driver.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think packed ring makes vhost PMD faster, but it doesn't make
> > > > > > the driver faster. In packed ring, the ring is simplified, and
> > > > > > the handling of the ring in vhost (device) is also simplified,
> > > > > > but things are not simplified in driver, e.g. although there is
> > > > > > no desc table in the virtqueue anymore, driver still needs to
> > > > > > maintain a private desc state table (which is still managed as
> > > > > > a list in this patch set) to support the out-of-order desc
> > > > > > processing in vhost (device).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think this patch set is mainly to make the driver have a full
> > > > > > functional support for the packed ring, which makes it possible
> > > > > > to leverage the packed ring feature in vhost (device). But I'm
> > > > > > not sure whether there is any other better idea, I'd like to
> > > > > > hear your thoughts. Thanks!
> > > > > Just this: Jens seems to report a nice gain with virtio and
> > > > > vhost pmd across the board. Try to compare virtio and
> > > > > virtio pmd to see what does pmd do better?
> > > > The virtio PMD (drivers/net/virtio) in DPDK doesn't need to share
> > > > the virtio ring operation code with other drivers and is highly
> > > > optimized for network. E.g. in Rx, the Rx burst function won't
> > > > chain descs. So the ID management for the Rx ring can be quite
> > > > simple and straightforward, we just need to initialize these IDs
> > > > when initializing the ring and don't need to change these IDs
> > > > in data path anymore (the mergable Rx code in that patch set
> > > > assumes the descs will be written back in order, which should be
> > > > fixed. I.e., the ID in the desc should be used to index vq->descx[]).
> > > > The Tx code in that patch set also assumes the descs will be
> > > > written back by device in order, which should be fixed.
> > > 
> > > Yes it is. I think I've pointed it out in some early version of pmd patch.
> > > So I suspect part (or all) of the boost may come from in order feature.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But in kernel virtio driver, the virtio_ring.c is very generic.
> > > > The enqueue (virtqueue_add()) and dequeue (virtqueue_get_buf_ctx())
> > > > functions need to support all the virtio devices and should be
> > > > able to handle all the possible cases that may happen. So although
> > > > the packed ring can be very efficient in some cases, currently
> > > > the room to optimize the performance in kernel's virtio_ring.c
> > > > isn't that much. If we want to take the fully advantage of the
> > > > packed ring's efficiency, we need some further e.g. API changes
> > > > in virtio_ring.c, which shouldn't be part of this patch set.
> > > 
> > > Could you please share more thoughts on this e.g how to improve the API?
> > > Notice since the API is shared by both split ring and packed ring, it may
> > > improve the performance of split ring as well. One can easily imagine a
> > > batching API, but it does not have many real users now, the only case is the
> > > XDP transmission which can accept an array of XDP frames.
> > 
> > I don't have detailed thoughts on this yet. But kernel's
> > virtio_ring.c is quite generic compared with what we did
> > in virtio PMD.
> 
> In what way? What are some things that aren't implemented there?

Below is the code corresponding to the virtqueue_add()
for Rx ring in virtio PMD:

https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/3605968c2fa7/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c#L278-L304

And below is the code of virtqueue_add() in Linux:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/54eda9df17f3/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c#L275-L417

In virtio PMD, for each packet (mbuf), the code is pretty
straightforward, it will just check whether there is one
available desc. If it's true, it will just fill this desc
directly.

But in virtqueue_add(), it's obvious that, the logic is
much more complicated or generic. It's supposed to be
able to handle sglist (which may consist of multiple IN
buffers and multiple OUT buffers at the same time), and
it will try to use indirect descriptors. Then it needs
several loops to parse the sglist. That's why I said
it's quite generic.

> 
> If what you say is true then we should take a careful look
> and not supporting these generic things with packed layout.
> Once we do support them it will be too late and we won't
> be able to get performance back.

I think it's a good point that we don't need to support
everything in packed ring (especially these which would
hurt the performance), as the packed ring aims at high
performance. I'm also wondering about the features. Is
there any possibility that we won't support the out of
order processing (at least not by default) in packed ring?
If I didn't miss anything, the need to support out of order
processing in packed ring will make the data structure
inside the driver not cache friendly which is similar to
the case of the descriptor table in the split ring (the
difference is that, it only happens in driver now).


> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > So
> > > > I still think this patch set is mainly to make the kernel virtio
> > > > driver to have a full functional support of the packed ring, and
> > > > we can't expect impressive performance boost with it.
> > > 
> > > We can only gain when virtio ring layout is the bottleneck. If there're
> > > bottlenecks elsewhere, we probably won't see any increasing in the numbers.
> > > Vhost-net is an example, and lots of optimizations have proved that virtio
> > > ring is not the main bottleneck for the current codes. I suspect it also the
> > > case of virtio driver. Did perf tell us any interesting things in virtio
> > > driver?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:27:06AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > This patch set implements packed ring support in virtio driver.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Some functional tests have been done with Jason's
> > > > > > > > packed ring implementation in vhost:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/3/33
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Both of ping and netperf worked as expected.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > > > > - Use READ_ONCE() to read event off_wrap and flags together (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Add comments related to ccw (Jason);
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC (v6) -> v1:
> > > > > > > > - Avoid extra virtio_wmb() in virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed_packed()
> > > > > > > >    when event idx is off (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Fix bufs calculation in virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Test the state of the desc at used_idx instead of last_used_idx
> > > > > > > >    in virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Save wrap counter (as part of queue state) in the return value
> > > > > > > >    of virtqueue_enable_cb_prepare_packed();
> > > > > > > > - Refine the packed ring definitions in uapi;
> > > > > > > > - Rebase on the net-next tree;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC v5 -> RFC v6:
> > > > > > > > - Avoid tracking addr/len/flags when DMA API isn't used (MST/Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Define wrap counter as bool (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Use ALIGN() in vring_init_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Avoid using pointer to track `next` in detach_buf_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Add comments for barriers (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Don't enable RING_PACKED on ccw for now (noticed by Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Refine the memory barrier in virtqueue_poll();
> > > > > > > > - Add a missing memory barrier in virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed_packed();
> > > > > > > > - Remove the hacks in virtqueue_enable_cb_prepare_packed();
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC v4 -> RFC v5:
> > > > > > > > - Save DMA addr, etc in desc state (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Track used wrap counter;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC v3 -> RFC v4:
> > > > > > > > - Make ID allocation support out-of-order (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Various fixes for EVENT_IDX support;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC v2 -> RFC v3:
> > > > > > > > - Split into small patches (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Add helper virtqueue_use_indirect() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Just set id for the last descriptor of a list (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Calculate the prev in virtqueue_add_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Fix/improve desc suppression code (Jason/MST);
> > > > > > > > - Refine the code layout for XXX_split/packed and wrappers (MST);
> > > > > > > > - Fix the comments and API in uapi (MST);
> > > > > > > > - Remove the BUG_ON() for indirect (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Some other refinements and bug fixes;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > RFC v1 -> RFC v2:
> > > > > > > > - Add indirect descriptor support - compile test only;
> > > > > > > > - Add event suppression supprt - compile test only;
> > > > > > > > - Move vring_packed_init() out of uapi (Jason, MST);
> > > > > > > > - Merge two loops into one in virtqueue_add_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Split vring_unmap_one() for packed ring and split ring (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Avoid using '%' operator (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Rename free_head -> next_avail_idx (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Add comments for virtio_wmb() in virtqueue_add_packed() (Jason);
> > > > > > > > - Some other refinements and bug fixes;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Tiwei Bie (5):
> > > > > > > >    virtio: add packed ring definitions
> > > > > > > >    virtio_ring: support creating packed ring
> > > > > > > >    virtio_ring: add packed ring support
> > > > > > > >    virtio_ring: add event idx support in packed ring
> > > > > > > >    virtio_ring: enable packed ring
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c   |   14 +
> > > > > > > >   drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c       | 1365 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > > > > >   include/linux/virtio_ring.h        |    8 +-
> > > > > > > >   include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h |    3 +
> > > > > > > >   include/uapi/linux/virtio_ring.h   |   43 +
> > > > > > > >   5 files changed, 1157 insertions(+), 276 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > 2.18.0
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > > 
> > >