From: "Singh, Jasvinder" <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>
To: Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net>
Cc: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>,
"Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
"Dharmappa, Savinay" <savinay.dharmappa@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] scheduler issue
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:55:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <A6086017-5040-4ABE-8E9C-F0A38F9D9A6A@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7909ed9ded69f36b262ff151244c8b0d@therouter.net>
> On 11 Dec 2020, at 22:27, Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:
>
> On 2020-12-11 23:06, Singh, Jasvinder wrote:
>>>> On 11 Dec 2020, at 21:29, Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:
>>> On 2020-12-08 14:24, Singh, Jasvinder wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> > [JS] now, returning to 1 mbps pipes situation, try reducing tc period
>>>>> > first at subport and then at pipe level, if that help in getting even
>>>>> > traffic across low bandwidth pipes.
>>>>> reducing subport tc from 10 to 5 period also solved the problem with 1
>>>>> Mbit/s pipes.
>>>>> so, my second problem has been solved,
>>>>> but the first one with some of low bandwidth pipes stop transmitting still
>>>>> remains.
>>>> I see, try removing "pkt_len <= pipe_tc_ov_credits" condition in the
>>>> grinder_credits_check() code for oversubscription case, instead use
>>>> this pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits + pipe_tc_ov_credits;
>>> if I do what you suggest, I will get this code
>>> enough_credits = (pkt_len <= subport_tb_credits) &&
>>> (pkt_len <= subport_tc_credits) &&
>>> (pkt_len <= pipe_tb_credits) &&
>>> (pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits) &&
>>> (pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits + pipe_tc_ov_credits);
>>> And this doesn't make sense since if condition pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits is true
>>> then condition (pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits + pipe_tc_ov_credits) is also always true.
>> [JS] my suggestion is to remove“pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits“, “ pkt_len
>> <= pipe_tc_ov_credits”and use only “pkt_len <= pipe_tc_credits +
>> pipe_tc_ov_credits“
>> While keeping tc_ov flag on.
>>> Your suggestion just turns off TC_OV feature.
>
> I don't see your point.
>
> This new suggestion will also effectively turn off the TC_OV feature since
> the only effect of enabling TC_OV is adding additional condition
> pkt_len <= pipe_tc_ov_credits
> which doesn't allow a pipe to spend more resources than it should.
> And in the case of support congestion a pipe should spent less than %100 of pipe's maximum rate.
>
> And you suggest to allow pipe to spend 100% of it's rate plus some extra.
> I guess effect of this would even more unfair support's bandwidth distibution.
>
> Btw, a pipe might stop transmitting even when there is no congestion at a subport.
>
Although I didn’t try this solution but the idea here is - in a particular round, of pkt_len is less than pipe_tc_credits( which is a constant value each time) but greater than pipe_tc_ov_credits, then it might hit the situation when no packet will be scheduled from the pipe even though there are fixed credits greater than packet size is available. In fairness, pipe should send the as much as packets which consumes pipe_tc_credits, regardless of extra pipe_tc_ov_credits which is extra on top of pipe_tc_credits.
>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>> rcv 0 rx rate 7324160 nb pkts 5722
>>>>> >>> rcv 1 rx rate 7281920 nb pkts 5689
>>>>> >>> rcv 2 rx rate 7226880 nb pkts 5646
>>>>> >>> rcv 3 rx rate 7124480 nb pkts 5566
>>>>> >>> rcv 4 rx rate 7324160 nb pkts 5722
>>>>> >>> rcv 5 rx rate 7271680 nb pkts 5681
>>>>> >>> rcv 6 rx rate 7188480 nb pkts 5616
>>>>> >>> rcv 7 rx rate 7150080 nb pkts 5586
>>>>> >>> rcv 8 rx rate 7328000 nb pkts 5725
>>>>> >>> rcv 9 rx rate 7249920 nb pkts 5664
>>>>> >>> rcv 10 rx rate 7188480 nb pkts 5616 rcv 11 rx rate 7179520 nb pkts
>>>>> >>> 5609 rcv 12 rx rate 7324160 nb pkts 5722 rcv 13 rx rate 7208960 nb
>>>>> >>> pkts 5632 rcv 14 rx rate 7152640 nb pkts 5588 rcv 15 rx rate
>>>>> >>> 7127040 nb pkts 5568 rcv 16 rx rate 7303680 nb pkts 5706 ....
>>>>> >>> rcv 587 rx rate 2406400 nb pkts 1880 rcv 588 rx rate 2406400 nb pkts
>>>>> >>> 1880 rcv 589 rx rate 2406400 nb pkts 1880 rcv 590 rx rate 2406400 nb
>>>>> >>> pkts 1880 rcv 591 rx rate 2406400 nb pkts 1880 rcv 592 rx rate
>>>>> >>> 2398720 nb pkts 1874 rcv 593 rx rate 2400000 nb pkts 1875 rcv 594 rx
>>>>> >>> rate 2400000 nb pkts 1875 rcv 595 rx rate 2400000 nb pkts 1875 rcv
>>>>> >>> 596 rx rate 2401280 nb pkts 1876 rcv 597 rx rate 2401280 nb pkts
>>>>> >>> 1876 rcv 598 rx rate 2401280 nb pkts 1876 rcv 599 rx rate 2402560 nb
>>>>> >>> pkts 1877 rx rate sum 3156416000
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>>> ... despite that there is _NO_ congestion...
>>>>> >>>>> congestion at the subport or pipe.
>>>>> >>>>>> And the subport !! doesn't use about 42 mbit/s of available
>>>>> >>>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>> >>>>>> The only difference is those test configurations is TC of
>>>>> >>>>>> generated traffic.
>>>>> >>>>>> Test 1 uses TC 1 while test 2 uses TC 3 (which is use TC_OV
>>>>> >>>>>> function).
>>>>> >>>>>> So, enabling TC_OV changes the results dramatically.
>>>>> >>>>>> ##
>>>>> >>>>>> ## test1
>>>>> >>>>>> ##
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add profile 7 rate 2 M size 1000000 tc period 40
>>>>> >>>>>> # qos test port
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 rate 10 G mtu 1522 frame overhead 24 queue sizes
>>>>> >>>>>> 64 64 64 64
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 subport 0 rate 300 M size 1000000 tc period 10
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 subport 0 pipes 2000 profile 7 hqos add port 1
>>>>> >>>>>> subport 0 pipes 200 profile 23 hqos set port 1 lcore 3 port 1
>>>>> >>>>>> subport rate 300 M number of tx flows 300 generator tx rate 1M TC
>>>>> >>>>>> 1 ...
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 284 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 285 rx rate 995840 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 778 rcv 286 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 287 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 288 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 289
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 290 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 291 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 292 rx rate 995840 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 778 rcv 293 rx rate 995840 nb pkts 778 rcv 294 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 995840 nb pkts 778 ...
>>>>> >>>>>> sum pipe's rx rate is 298 494 720 OK.
>>>>> >>>>>> The subport rate is equally distributed to 300 pipes.
>>>>> >>>>>> ##
>>>>> >>>>>> ## test 2
>>>>> >>>>>> ##
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add profile 7 rate 2 M size 1000000 tc period 40
>>>>> >>>>>> # qos test port
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 rate 10 G mtu 1522 frame overhead 24 queue sizes
>>>>> >>>>>> 64 64 64 64
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 subport 0 rate 300 M size 1000000 tc period 10
>>>>> >>>>>> hqos add port 1 subport 0 pipes 2000 profile 7 hqos add port 1
>>>>> >>>>>> subport 0 pipes 200 profile 23 hqos set port 1 lcore 3 port 1
>>>>> >>>>>> subport rate 300 M number of tx flows 300 generator tx rate 1M TC
>>>>> >>>>>> 3
>>>>> >>>>>> h5 ~ # rcli sh qos rcv
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 0 rx rate 875520 nb pkts 684
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 1 rx rate 856320 nb pkts 669
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 2 rx rate 849920 nb pkts 664
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 3 rx rate 853760 nb pkts 667
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 4 rx rate 867840 nb pkts 678
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 5 rx rate 844800 nb pkts 660
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 6 rx rate 852480 nb pkts 666
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 7 rx rate 855040 nb pkts 668
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 8 rx rate 865280 nb pkts 676
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 9 rx rate 846080 nb pkts 661
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 10 rx rate 858880 nb pkts 671 rcv 11 rx rate 870400 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 680 rcv 12 rx rate 864000 nb pkts 675 rcv 13 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 852480 nb pkts 666 rcv 14 rx rate 855040 nb pkts 668 rcv 15
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 857600 nb pkts 670 rcv 16 rx rate 864000 nb pkts 675
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 17 rx rate 866560 nb pkts 677 rcv 18 rx rate 865280 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 676 rcv 19 rx rate 858880 nb pkts 671 rcv 20 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 856320 nb pkts 669 rcv 21 rx rate 864000 nb pkts 675 rcv 22
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 869120 nb pkts 679 rcv 23 rx rate 856320 nb pkts 669
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 24 rx rate 862720 nb pkts 674 rcv 25 rx rate 865280 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 676 rcv 26 rx rate 867840 nb pkts 678 rcv 27 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 870400 nb pkts 680 rcv 28 rx rate 860160 nb pkts 672 rcv 29
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 870400 nb pkts 680 rcv 30 rx rate 869120 nb pkts 679
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 31 rx rate 870400 nb pkts 680 rcv 32 rx rate 858880 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 671 rcv 33 rx rate 858880 nb pkts 671 rcv 34 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 852480 nb pkts 666 rcv 35 rx rate 874240 nb pkts 683 rcv 36
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 855040 nb pkts 668 rcv 37 rx rate 853760 nb pkts 667
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 38 rx rate 869120 nb pkts 679 rcv 39 rx rate 885760 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 692 rcv 40 rx rate 861440 nb pkts 673 rcv 41 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 852480 nb pkts 666 rcv 42 rx rate 871680 nb pkts 681 ...
>>>>> >>>>>> ...
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 288 rx rate 766720 nb pkts 599 rcv 289 rx rate 766720 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 599 rcv 290 rx rate 766720 nb pkts 599 rcv 291 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 766720 nb pkts 599 rcv 292 rx rate 762880 nb pkts 596 rcv 293
>>>>> >>>>>> rx rate 762880 nb pkts 596 rcv 294 rx rate 762880 nb pkts 596
>>>>> >>>>>> rcv 295 rx rate 760320 nb pkts 594 rcv 296 rx rate 604160 nb
>>>>> >>>>>> pkts 472 rcv 297 rx rate 604160 nb pkts 472 rcv 298 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> 604160 nb pkts 472 rcv 299 rx rate 604160 nb pkts 472 rx rate
>>>>> >>>>>> sum 258839040 FAILED.
>>>>> >>>>>> The subport rate is distributed NOT equally between 300 pipes.
>>>>> >>>>>> Some subport bandwith (about 42) is not being used!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-11 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-24 13:34 Alex Kiselev
2020-11-25 15:04 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-11-27 12:11 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-07 10:00 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-07 10:46 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-07 11:32 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-07 12:29 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-07 16:49 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-07 17:31 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-07 17:45 ` Alex Kiselev
[not found] ` <49019BC8-DDA6-4B39-B395-2A68E91AB424@intel.com>
[not found] ` <226b13286c876e69ad40a65858131b66@therouter.net>
[not found] ` <4536a02973015dc8049834635f145a19@therouter.net>
[not found] ` <f9a27b6493ae1e1e2850a3b459ab9d33@therouter.net>
[not found] ` <B8241A33-0927-4411-A340-9DD0BEE07968@intel.com>
[not found] ` <e6a0429dc4a1a33861a066e3401e85b6@therouter.net>
2020-12-07 22:16 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-07 22:32 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-08 10:52 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-08 13:24 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-09 13:41 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-10 10:29 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-11 21:29 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-11 22:06 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-11 22:27 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-11 22:36 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-11 22:55 ` Singh, Jasvinder [this message]
2020-12-11 23:36 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-12 0:20 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-12 0:45 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-12 0:54 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-12 1:45 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-12 10:22 ` Singh, Jasvinder
2020-12-12 10:46 ` Alex Kiselev
2020-12-12 17:19 ` Alex Kiselev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=A6086017-5040-4ABE-8E9C-F0A38F9D9A6A@intel.com \
--to=jasvinder.singh@intel.com \
--cc=alex@therouter.net \
--cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
--cc=savinay.dharmappa@intel.com \
--cc=users@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).