[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/5] net: low latency Ethernet device polling
On 02/27/2013 09:55 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> This patchset adds the ability for the socket layer code to poll directly
> on an Ethernet device's RX queue. This eliminates the cost of the interrupt
> and context switch and with proper tuning allows us to get very close
> to the HW latency.
> This is a follow up to Jesse Brandeburg's Kernel Plumbers talk from last year
> Patch 1 adds ndo_ll_poll and the IP code to use it.
> Patch 2 is an example of how TCP can use ndo_ll_poll.
> Patch 3 shows how this method would be implemented for the ixgbe driver.
> Patch 4 adds statistics to the ixgbe driver for ndo_ll_poll events.
> (Optional) Patch 5 is a handy kprobes module to measure detailed latency
> numbers.
> this patchset is also available in the following git branch
> git:// rfc
> Performance numbers:
> Kernel Config C3/6 rx-usecs TCP UDP
> 3.8rc6 typical off adaptive 37k 40k
> 3.8rc6 typical off 0* 50k 56k
> 3.8rc6 optimized off 0* 61k 67k
> 3.8rc6 optimized on adaptive 26k 29k
> patched typical off adaptive 70k 78k
> patched optimized off adaptive 79k 88k
> patched optimized off 100 84k 92k
> patched optimized on adaptive 83k 91k
> *rx-usecs=0 is usually not useful in a production environment.

I would think that latency-sensitive folks would be using rx-usecs=0 in
production - at least if the NIC in use didn't have low enough latency
with its default interrupt coalescing/avoidance heuristics.

If I take the first "pure" A/B comparison it seems that the change as
benchmarked takes latency for TCP from ~27 usec (37k) to ~14 usec (70k).
At what request/response size does the benefit taper-off? 13 usec
seems to be about 16250 bytes at 10 GbE.

When I last looked at netperf TCP_RR performance where something similar
could happen I think it was IPoIB where it was possible to set things up
such that polling happened rather than wakeups (perhaps it was with a
shim library that converted netperf's socket calls to "native" IB). My
recollection is that it "did a number" on the netperf service demands
thanks to the spinning. It would be a good thing to include those
figures in any subsequent rounds of benchmarking.

Am I correct in assuming this is a mechanism which would not be used in
a high aggregate PPS situation?

happy benchmarking,

rick jones

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-27 21:21    [W:0.235 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site