DPDK usage discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
* [dpdk-users] Peformance troubleshouting of TCP/IP stack over DPDK.
@ 2020-05-06  5:14 Pavel Vajarov
  2020-05-06 14:54 ` Stephen Hemminger
  2020-05-26 16:50 ` Vincent Li
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Vajarov @ 2020-05-06  5:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: users

Hi there,

We are trying to compare the performance of DPDK+FreeBSD networking stack
vs standard Linux kernel and we have problems finding out why the former is
slower. The details are below.

There is a project called F-Stack <https://github.com/F-Stack/f-stack>.
It glues the networking stack from
FreeBSD 11.01 over DPDK. We made a setup to test the performance of
TCP proxy based on F-Stack and another one running on Standard Linux
We did the tests on KVM with 2 cores (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6139 CPU @
and 32GB RAM. 10Gbs NIC was attached in passthrough mode.
The application level code, the one which handles epoll notifications and
memcpy data between the sockets, of the both proxy applications is 100% the
same. Both proxy applications are single threaded and in all tests we
pinned the applications on core 1. The interrupts from the network card
were pinned to the same core 1 for the test with the standard Linux

Here are the test results:
1. The Linux based proxy was able to handle about 1.7-1.8 Gbps before it
started to throttle the traffic. No visible CPU usage was observed on core
0 during the tests, only core 1, where the application and the IRQs were
pinned, took the load.
2. The DPDK+FreeBSD proxy was able to thandle 700-800 Mbps before it
started to throttle the traffic. No visible CPU usage was observed on core
0 during the tests only core 1, where the application was pinned, took the
load. In some of the latter tests I did some changes to the number of read
packets in one call from the network card and the number of handled events
in one call to epoll. With these changes I was able to increase the
to 900-1000 Mbps but couldn't increase it more.
3. We did another test with the DPDK+FreeBSD proxy just to give us some
more info about the problem. We disabled the TCP proxy functionality and
let the packets be simply ip forwarded by the FreeBSD stack. In this test
we reached up to 5Gbps without being able to throttle the traffic. We just
don't have more traffic to redirect there at the moment. So the bottlneck
seem to be either in the upper level of the network stack or in the

There is a huawei switch which redirects the traffic to this server. It
sends arping and if the server doesn't respond it stops the redirection.
So we assumed that when the redirection stops it's because the server
throttles the traffic and drops packets and can't respond to the arping
of the packets drop.

The whole application can be very roughly represented in the following way:
 - Write pending outgoing packets to the network card
- Read incoming packets from the network card
 - Push the incoming packets to the FreeBSD stack
 - Call epoll_wait/kevent without waiting
 - Handle the events
 - loop from the beginning
According to the performance profiling that we did, aside from packet
 about 25-30% of the application time seems to be spent in the
even though the `timeout` parameter of this call is set to 0 i.e.
it shouldn't block waiting for events if there is none.

I can give you much more details and code for everything, if needed.

My questions are:
1. Does somebody have observations or educated guesses about what amount of
traffic should I expect the DPDK + FreeBSD stack + kevent to process in the
scenario? Are the numbers low or expected?
We've expected to see better performance than the standard Linux kernel one
so far we can't get this performance.
2. Do you think the diffrence comes because of the time spending handling
and handling epoll in both of the tests? What do I mean. For the standard
Linux tests
the interrupts handling has higher priority than the epoll handling and
thus the application
can spend much more time handling packets and processing them in the kernel
handling epoll events in the user space. For the DPDK+FreeBSD case the time
handling packets and the time for processing epolls is kind of equal. I
think, that this was
the reason why we were able to get more performance increasing the number
of read
packets at one go and decreasing the epoll events. However, we couldn't
increase the
throughput enough with these tweaks.
3. Can you suggest something else that we can test/measure/profile to get
better idea
what exactly is happening here and to improve the performance more?

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-06  5:14 [dpdk-users] Peformance troubleshouting of TCP/IP stack over DPDK Pavel Vajarov
2020-05-06 14:54 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-05-07 10:47   ` Pavel Vajarov
2020-05-07 14:09     ` dave seddon
2020-05-07 20:31       ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-05-08  5:03         ` Pavel Vajarov
2020-05-20 19:43       ` Vincent Li
2020-05-21  8:09         ` Pavel Vajarov
2020-05-21 16:31           ` Vincent Li
2020-05-26 16:50 ` Vincent Li
2020-05-27  5:11   ` Pavel Vajarov
2020-05-27 16:44     ` Vincent Li

DPDK usage discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/users/0 users/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 users users/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/users \
	public-inbox-index users

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox