[dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine

[edgar helmut]

short explanation for how to read the comparison:
first row is packet length
throughput is half duplex, means:
second row is vm throughput of port 1 to 2 (port 2 to 1 has approximately
same throughput) in gbps.
third row is host throughput of port 1 to 2 (port 2 to 1 has approximately
same throughput) in gbps.

i.e. on 1500 bytes packet size testpmd delivers ~9.82 gbps from port 1 to 2
and another ~9.82 gbps from port 2 to 1, while at the vm it only delivers
~3.9 gbps for each direction.


On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM edgar helmut <helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks. That's the document i am following.
> For the best i can only ask that the hugepages won't be shared with
> others, but it never reserve it from the pre allocated hugepages of the
> host.
> Did you have a chance to use hugepages for a guest
>
> as for the interfaces, i am using the virtio/vhost which creates the
> macvtap:
>     <interface type='direct' managed='yes'>
>         <source dev='ens6f0' mode='passthrough'/>
>         <model type='virtio'/>
>         <driver name='vhost' queues='2'/>
>         </driver>
>         <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x04' slot='0x09'
> function='0x0'/>
>     </interface>
>
> The following is a performance comparison host vs. vm using testpmd. as
> you can see vm performance is poor.
>
> (sudo x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/app/testpmd -c 0x1f -n 3 -m 1024 --
> --coremask=0x1e --portmask=3 -i)
>
>
> 64 128 256 500 800 1000 1500
> vm 0.23 0.42 0.75 1.3 2.3 2.7 3.9
> host 3.6 6.35 8.3 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.82
>
> I have to improve it dramatically.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:52 AM Hu, Xuekun <xuekun.hu at intel.com> wrote:
>
> Searching “hugepages” in https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html
>
>
>
> If you are looking for to measure in and out packets through host, maybe
> you can look at vhost/virtio interface also.
>
>
>
> After your testing, if you can report the performace out with macvtap,
> that also helps us. J
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2016 11:53 PM
>
>
> *To:* Hu, Xuekun <xuekun.hu at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>; users at dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine
>
>
>
> any idea how to reserve hugepages for a guest (and not
> transparent/anonymous hugepages) ?
>
> i am using libvirt and any backing method I am trying results with
> anonymous hugepage.
>
> disabling the transparent hugepages resulted without any hugepages.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 10:06 AM edgar helmut <helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am looking for a mean to measure in and out packets to and from the vm
> (without asking the vm itself). While pure passthrough doesn't expose an
> interface to query for in/out pkts the macvtap exposes such an interface.
>
> As for the anonymous hugepages I was looking for a more flexible method
> and I assumed there is no much difference.
>
> I will make the test with reserved hugepages.
>
> However is there any knowledge about macvtap performance issues when
> delivering 5-6 gbps?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Dec 2016 9:06 AM, "Hu, Xuekun" <xuekun.hu at intel.com> wrote:
>
> Now your setup has a new thing, “macvtap”. I don’t know what’s the
> performance of using macvtap. I only know it has much worse perf than the
> “real” pci pass-through.
>
>
>
> I also don’t know why you select such config for your setup, anonymous
> huge pages and macvtap. Any specific purpose?
>
>
>
> I think you should get a baseline first, then to get how much perf dropped
> if using anonymous hugepages or macvtap。
>
> 1.      Baseline: real hugepage + real pci pass-through
>
> 2.      Anon hugepages vs hugepages
>
> 3.      Real pci pass-through vs. macvtap
>
>
>
> *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2016 3:23 AM
> *To:* Hu, Xuekun <xuekun.hu at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>; users at dpdk.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I changed the setup but still performance are poor :( and I need your help
> to understand the root cause.
>
> the setup is (sorry for long description):
>
> (test equipment is pktgen using dpdk installed on a second physical
> machine coonected with 82599 NICs)
>
> host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @ 2.40GHz with single socket ,
> ubuntu 16.04, with 4 hugepages of 1G each.
>
> hypervizor (kvm): QEMU emulator version 2.5.0
>
> guest: same cpu as host, created with 3 vcpus, using ubuntu 16.04
>
> dpdk: tried 2.2, 16.04, 16.07, 16.11 - using testpmd and 512 pages of 2M
> each.
>
> guest total memory is 2G and all of it is backed by the host with
> transparent hugepages (I can see the AnonHugePages consumed at guest
> creation). This memory includes the 512 hugepages for the testpmd
> application.
>
> I pinned and isolated the guest's vcpus (using kernel option isolcapu),
> and could see clearly that the isolation functions well.
>
>
>
> 2 x 82599 NICs connected as passthrough using macvtap interfaces to the
> guest, so the guest receives and forwards packets from one interface to the
> second and vice versa.
>
> at the guest I bind its interfaces using igb_uio.
>
> the testpmd at guest starts dropping packets at about ~800mbps between
> both ports bi-directional using two vcpus for forwarding (one for the
> application management and two for forwarding).
>
> at 1.2 gbps it drops a lot of packets.
>
> the same testpmd configuration on the host (between both 82599 NICs)
> forwards about 5-6gbps on both ports bi-directional.
>
> I assumed that forwarding ~5-6 gbps between two ports should be trivial,
> so it will be great if someone can share its configuration for a tested
> setup.
>
> Any further idea will be highly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM edgar helmut <helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> That's what I afraid.
>
> In fact i need the host to back the entire guest's memory with hugepages.
>
> I will find the way to do that and make the testing again.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2016 3:14 AM, "Hu, Xuekun" <xuekun.hu at intel.com> wrote:
>
> You said VM’s memory was 6G, while transparent hugepages was only used ~4G
> (4360192KB). So some were mapped to 4K pages.
>
>
>
> BTW, the memory used by transparent hugepage is not the hugepage you
> reserved in kernel boot option.
>
>
>
> *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2016 1:24 AM
> *To:* Hu, Xuekun
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith; users at dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine
>
>
>
> in fact the vm was created with 6G RAM, its kernel boot args are defined
> with 4 hugepages of 1G each, though when starting the vm i noted that
> anonhugepages increased.
>
> The relevant qemu process id is 6074, and the following sums the amount of
> allocated AnonHugePages:
> sudo grep -e AnonHugePages  /proc/6074/smaps | awk  '{ if($2>0) print $2}
> '|awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}'
>
> which results with 4360192
>
> so not all the memory is backed with transparent hugepages though it is
> more than the amount of hugepages the guest supposed to boot with.
>
> How can I be sure that the required 4G hugepages are really allocated?,
> and not, for example, only 2G out of the 4G are allocated (and the rest 2
> are mapping of the default 4K)?
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Hu, Xuekun <xuekun.hu at intel.com> wrote:
>
> Are you sure the anonhugepages size was equal to the total VM's memory
> size?
> Sometimes, transparent huge page mechanism doesn't grantee the app is using
> the real huge pages.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users [mailto:users-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of edgar helmut
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:32 PM
> To: Wiles, Keith
> Cc: users at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine
>
> I have one single socket which is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @
> 2.40GHz.
>
> I just made two more steps:
> 1. setting iommu=pt for better usage of the igb_uio
> 2. using taskset and isolcpu so now it looks like the relevant dpdk cores
> use dedicated cores.
>
> It improved the performance though I still see significant difference
> between the vm and the host which I can't fully explain.
>
> any further idea?
>
> Regards,
> Edgar
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 1:20 AM, edgar helmut <helmut.edgar100 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > > Some help is needed to understand performance issue on virtual machine.
> > >
> > > Running testpmd over the host functions well (testpmd forwards 10g
> > between
> > > two 82599 ports).
> > > However same application running on a virtual machine over same host
> > > results with huge degradation in performance.
> > > The testpmd then is not even able to read 100mbps from nic without
> drops,
> > > and from a profile i made it looks like a dpdk application runs more
> than
> > > 10 times slower than over host…
> >
> > Not sure I understand the overall setup, but did you make sure the
> NIC/PCI
> > bus is on the same socket as the VM. If you have multiple sockets on your
> > platform. If you have to access the NIC across the QPI it could explain
> > some of the performance drop. Not sure that much drop is this problem.
> >
> > >
> > > Setup is ubuntu 16.04 for host and ubuntu 14.04 for guest.
> > > Qemu is 2.3.0 (though I tried with a newer as well).
> > > NICs are connected to guest using pci passthrough, and guest's cpu is
> set
> > > as passthrough (same as host).
> > > On guest start the host allocates transparent hugepages (AnonHugePages)
> > so
> > > i assume the guest memory is backed with real hugepages on the host.
> > > I tried binding with igb_uio and with uio_pci_generic but both results
> > with
> > > same performance.
> > >
> > > Due to the performance difference i guess i miss something.
> > >
> > > Please advise what may i miss here?
> > > Is this a native penalty of qemu??
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Edgar
> >
> > Regards,
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>