Hi, Mikhail Isachenkov:
Great thanks for reply, I use wrk to do the test, please see below link for wrk script and nginx config file
https://gist.github.com/qiaoliu78/75e7710a02c3346d22ddda04cea83b97
I use 2 different E5 8280 servers, each with 2 Mellanox 100GB cards bound and directly connected, one server run Nginx the other server run WRK. I also run the test on same server, but seems can not prove anything. Below is the result
Run wrk and nginx on same server:
112 threads and 10000 connections
Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
Latency 57.24ms 248.60ms 8.09s 95.49%
Connect 269.96ms 450.84ms 1.07s 74.07%
Delay 20.80ms 133.16ms 1.99s 99.08%
Req/Sec 812.77 749.04 3.90k 76.18%
Latency Distribution
50.00% 8.28ms
75.00% 9.28ms
90.00% 19.02ms
99.00% 1.36s
99.90% 2.76s
99.99% 4.63s
Connect Distribution
50.00% 346.00us
75.00% 1.00s
90.00% 1.04s
99.00% 1.06s
99.90% 1.07s
99.99% 1.07s
Delay Distribution
50.00% 6.60ms
75.00% 7.53ms
90.00% 9.92ms
99.00% 45.82ms
99.90% 1.55s
99.99% 1.82s
2247253 requests in 1.00m, 2.14TB read
Socket errors: connect 0, read 376, write 0, pconn 581, nodata 0, timeout 19, connect_timeout 2419, delay_timeout 1178
Requests/sec: 37389.74
Transfer/sec: 36.53GB
Run nginx and wrk on two different server:
112 threads and 10000 connections
Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
Latency 1.27s 879.93ms 9.84s 76.66%
Connect 8.49ms 16.28ms 99.52ms 90.27%
Delay 740.14ms 597.38ms 2.00s 48.97%
Req/Sec 73.41 32.15 2.06k 68.31%
Latency Distribution
50.00% 1.24s
75.00% 1.67s
90.00% 2.16s
99.00% 4.40s
99.90% 7.74s
99.99% 9.11s
Connect Distribution
50.00% 2.71ms
75.00% 4.43ms
90.00% 24.43ms
99.00% 84.09ms
99.90% 99.25ms
99.99% 99.51ms
Delay Distribution
50.00% 747.60ms
75.00% 1.29s
90.00% 1.51s
99.00% 1.85s
99.90% 1.98s
99.99% 2.00s
487468 requests in 1.00m, 476.98GB read
Socket errors: connect 0, read 0, write 0, pconn 1, nodata 0, timeout 9, conne ct_timeout 0, delay_timeout 6912
Requests/sec: 8110.10
Transfer/sec: 7.94GB
Thanks
LQ
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikhail Isachenkov <mikhail.isachenkov@nginx.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 5:09 PM
To: nginx-devel@nginx.org; Liu, Qiao <qiao.liu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
Hi Liu Quao,
Looks like you didn't receive my answer for some reason. You can find it in maillist archive:
http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2020-September/013483.html
And let me quote it a little:
a) please share your test stand/test scripts/nginx configuration
b) did you perform any tests with server and client running on the same server?
17.11.2020 03:34, Liu, Qiao пишет:
> Hi, what is the result of this patch set now?
> Thanks
> LQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Qiao
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:59 AM
> To: nginx-devel@nginx.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
>
> Remove printf
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Liu Qiao <qiao.liu@intel.com>
> # Date 1599735293 14400
> # Thu Sep 10 06:54:53 2020 -0400
> # Node ID c2eabe9168d0cbefc030807a0808568d86c93e4f
> # Parent da5e3f5b16733167142b599b6af3ce9469a07d52
> Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
> Use Berkeley Packet Filter to get packet queue_mapping number, and use this queue_mapping number to distribute the packet to different work thread, this will improve CPU utilization and http latency.
> Author: Samudrala, Sridhar <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
>
> diff -r da5e3f5b1673 -r c2eabe9168d0 auto/os/linux
> --- a/auto/os/linux Wed Sep 02 23:13:36 2020 +0300
> +++ b/auto/os/linux Thu Sep 10 06:54:53 2020 -0400
> @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@
> have=NGX_HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE . auto/nohave fi
>
> +if [ $version -lt 263680 ]; then
> + have=NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF . auto/nohave fi
> +
> # epoll, EPOLLET version
>
> ngx_feature="epoll"
> diff -r da5e3f5b1673 -r c2eabe9168d0 auto/unix
> --- a/auto/unix Wed Sep 02 23:13:36 2020 +0300
> +++ b/auto/unix Thu Sep 10 06:54:53 2020 -0400
> @@ -331,6 +331,17 @@
> ngx_feature_test="setsockopt(0, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEPORT, NULL, 0)"
> . auto/feature
>
> +ngx_feature="SO_REUSEPORT_CBPF"
> +ngx_feature_name="NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF"
> +ngx_feature_run=no
> +ngx_feature_incs="#include <sys/socket.h>
> + #include <linux/filter.h>
> + #include <error.h>"
> +ngx_feature_path=
> +ngx_feature_libs=
> +ngx_feature_test="setsockopt(0, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_CBPF, NULL, 0)"
> +. auto/feature
> +
>
> ngx_feature="SO_ACCEPTFILTER"
> ngx_feature_name="NGX_HAVE_DEFERRED_ACCEPT"
> diff -r da5e3f5b1673 -r c2eabe9168d0 src/core/ngx_connection.c
> --- a/src/core/ngx_connection.c Wed Sep 02 23:13:36 2020 +0300
> +++ b/src/core/ngx_connection.c Thu Sep 10 06:54:53 2020 -0400
> @@ -8,7 +8,10 @@
> #include <ngx_config.h>
> #include <ngx_core.h>
> #include <ngx_event.h>
> -
> +#if (NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF)
> +#include <linux/filter.h>
> +#include <error.h>
> +#endif
>
> ngx_os_io_t ngx_io;
>
> @@ -708,6 +711,35 @@
> return NGX_OK;
> }
>
> +#if(NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT)
> +#if(NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF)
> +#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
> +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0])) #endif
> +
> +static ngx_int_t attach_bpf(int fd, uint16_t n) {
> + struct sock_filter code[] = {
> + /* A = skb->queue_mapping */
> + { BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_ABS, 0, 0, SKF_AD_OFF + SKF_AD_QUEUE },
> + /* A = A % n */
> + { BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD, 0, 0, n },
> + /* return A */
> + { BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0, 0, 0 },
> + };
> + struct sock_fprog p = {
> + .len = ARRAY_SIZE(code),
> + .filter = code,
> + };
> +
> + if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_CBPF, &p, sizeof(p)))
> + return NGX_ERROR;
> + else
> + return NGX_OK;
> +}
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +
>
> void
> ngx_configure_listening_sockets(ngx_cycle_t *cycle) @@ -719,6 +751,11 @@ #if (NGX_HAVE_DEFERRED_ACCEPT && defined SO_ACCEPTFILTER)
> struct accept_filter_arg af;
> #endif
> +#if (NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT)
> +#if (NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF)
> + ngx_core_conf_t* ccf ;
> +#endif
> +#endif
>
> ls = cycle->listening.elts;
> for (i = 0; i < cycle->listening.nelts; i++) { @@ -1011,6 +1048,31 @@
> }
>
> #endif
> +#if (NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT)
> +#if (NGX_HAVE_REUSEPORT_CBPF)
> + if(ls[i].reuseport)
> + {
> + ccf = (ngx_core_conf_t *) ngx_get_conf(cycle->conf_ctx,ngx_core_module);
> + if(ccf)
> + {
> + if( NGX_OK == attach_bpf(ls[i].fd, ccf->worker_processes) )
> + {
> + ngx_log_error(NGX_LOG_INFO,cycle->log ,ngx_socket_errno,\
> + "bpf prog attached to fd:%d\n", ls[i].fd);
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + ngx_log_error(NGX_LOG_ERR,cycle->log ,ngx_socket_errno,\
> + "failed to set SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_CBPF\n");
> + }
> + }
> + else
> + ngx_log_error(NGX_LOG_ERR,cycle->log ,ngx_socket_errno,\
> + "can not get config, attach bpf failed\n");
> +
> + }
> +#endif
> +#endif
> }
>
> return;
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Qiao
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:09 AM
> To: nginx-devel@nginx.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
>
> Below is 5 times test result compare, 112 threads, 10000 connections,
> 1M object http request. Seems P99 have great improvement, and Max is
> also reduced
>
>
>
> AVG Stdev Max P99
> test 1 1.32s 447.09ms 5.48s 2.82s
> BPF test 2 1.39s 513.8ms 9.42s 3.1s
> test 3 1.4s 341.38ms 5.63s 2.55s
> test 4 1.41s 407.45ms 6.96s 2.77s
> test 5 1.29s 644.81ms 9.45s 3.74s
> Average 1.362s 470.906ms 7.388s 2.996s
>
> NonBPF test 1 1.48s 916.88ms 9.44s 5.08s
> test 2 1.43s 658.48ms 9.54s 3.92s
> test 3 1.41s 650.38ms 8.63s 3.59s
> test 4 1.29s 1010ms 10s 5.21s
> test 5 1.31s 875.01ms 9.53s 4.39s
> Average 1.384s 822.15ms 9.428s 4.438s
>
>
> Thanks
> LQ
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nginx-devel <nginx-devel-bounces@nginx.org> On Behalf Of Liu,
> Qiao
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:18 AM
> To: nginx-devel@nginx.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
>
> Hi, Maxim Dounin:
> Thanks for your reply, this server is random selected, we just do BPF
> and no-BPF test, I think the latency based on server configuration,
> not related with BPF patch, also the NIC of the server is Mellanox,
> not ADQ capable hardware , we will do more test Thanks LQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nginx-devel <nginx-devel-bounces@nginx.org> On Behalf Of Maxim
> Dounin
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:40 AM
> To: nginx-devel@nginx.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use BPF to distribute packet to different work thread.
>
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 05:41:47AM +0000, Liu, Qiao wrote:
>
>> Hi, Vladimir Homutov:
>> The below is our WRK test result output with BPF enable
>>
>> 112 threads and 10000 connections
>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>> Latency 608.23ms 820.71ms 10.00s 87.48%
>> Connect 16.52ms 54.53ms 1.99s 94.73%
>> Delay 153.13ms 182.17ms 2.00s 90.74%
>> Req/Sec 244.79 142.32 1.99k 68.40%
>> Latency Distribution
>> 50.00% 293.50ms
>> 75.00% 778.33ms
>> 90.00% 1.61s
>> 99.00% 3.71s
>> 99.90% 7.03s
>> 99.99% 8.94s
>> Connect Distribution
>> 50.00% 1.93ms
>> 75.00% 2.85ms
>> 90.00% 55.76ms
>> 99.00% 229.19ms
>> 99.90% 656.79ms
>> 99.99% 1.43s
>> Delay Distribution
>> 50.00% 110.96ms
>> 75.00% 193.67ms
>> 90.00% 321.77ms
>> 99.00% 959.27ms
>> 99.90% 1.57s
>> 99.99% 1.91s
>> Compared with no BPF but enable reuseport as below
>>
>> 112 threads and 10000 connections
>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>> Latency 680.50ms 943.69ms 10.00s 87.18%
>> Connect 58.44ms 238.08ms 2.00s 94.58%
>> Delay 158.84ms 256.28ms 2.00s 90.92%
>> Req/Sec 244.51 151.00 1.41k 69.67%
>> Latency Distribution
>> 50.00% 317.61ms
>> 75.00% 913.52ms
>> 90.00% 1.90s
>> 99.00% 4.30s
>> 99.90% 6.52s
>> 99.99% 8.80s
>> Connect Distribution
>> 50.00% 1.88ms
>> 75.00% 2.21ms
>> 90.00% 55.94ms
>> 99.00% 1.45s
>> 99.90% 1.95s
>> 99.99% 2.00s
>> Delay Distribution
>> 50.00% 73.01ms
>> 75.00% 190.40ms
>> 90.00% 387.01ms
>> 99.00% 1.34s
>> 99.90% 1.86s
>> 99.99% 1.99s
>>
>>
>> From the above results, there shows almost 20% percent latency
>> reduction. P99 latency of BPF is 3.71s , but without BPF is 4.3s.
>
> Thank you for the results.
>
> Given that latency stdev is way higher than the average latency, I don't think the "20% percent latency reduction" observed is statistically significant. Please try running several tests and use ministat(1) to check the results.
>
> Also, the latency values look very high, and request rate very low. What's on the server side?
>
> --
> Maxim Dounin
> http://mdounin.ru/
> _______________________________________________
> nginx-devel mailing list
> nginx-devel@nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
> _______________________________________________
> nginx-devel mailing list
> nginx-devel@nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
> _______________________________________________
> nginx-devel mailing list
> nginx-devel@nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
>
--
Best regards,
Mikhail Isachenkov
NGINX Professional Services
_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
