Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 1616306

Summary: Performance Degradation running PVP on all packet sizes. rfc 2544 Throughput tests
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Bob Fubel <bfubel>
Component: openvswitch2.10Assignee: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Bob Fubel <bfubel>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.5CC: aloughla, atragler, bfubel, cfontain, ctrautma, fbaudin, maxime.coquelin, rkhan
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-09-17 06:40:07 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Host cmds
none
guest cmds
none
Test Results
none
Xena2544 tester file
none
RFC2544 Configuration file for Xena
none
OVS 2.9 xena results
none
OVS 2.10 xena results none

Description Bob Fubel 2018-08-15 14:50:53 UTC
Created attachment 1476170 [details]
Host cmds

Description of problem:
Performace has dropped fom 2.9 to 2.10. running in ixgbe. only change was ugraded from 2.9 to 2.10 between runs.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
openvswitch2.10-2.10.0-0.20180810git58a7ce6.el7fdp.x86_64
openvswitch-2.9.0-55.el7fdp.x86_64

How reproducible:
every time.

Steps to Reproduce:
attached log for host and guests. running xena traffic generator. RFC2544 throughtput test 0% loss test.
some loss seen for 60 second trials and large loss seen on 20 minute trials.

Actual results:
attaced results:

Expected results:
Perfoamce should not have changed.

Additional info:
Using CPU-partioning tuned-adm profile. 7.5 on host and guest.

Comment 2 Bob Fubel 2018-08-15 14:51:46 UTC
Created attachment 1476172 [details]
guest cmds

Comment 3 Bob Fubel 2018-08-15 14:52:35 UTC
Created attachment 1476173 [details]
Test Results

Comment 4 Christian Trautman 2018-08-17 00:03:12 UTC
Per conversation with Rashid, assigning to Eelco.

Comment 5 Eelco Chaudron 2018-08-23 07:44:47 UTC
Was wondering if the system was properly tuned, as I do see quite some deviation in the runs, especially the 2.10 ones. Or is this expected with RFC2544?

I don't have a Xena set up, but do see some lower numbers on a quick run for 256 bytes packets on the ovs_perf zero packet loss test. Will do a full run on my setup and see the results. If they look ok, will try to get some Xena ports.

In the meantime, can you repeat the test for PP, so without the VM. If the problem is not seen there it might help to pinpoint the commit easier (vhost related).

In addition was the 2.9 and 2.10 test ran on the same setup?

What NIC's (and a which speed) where used?

Can you get me a copy of the Xena configuration file you used for testing?

Comment 6 Eelco Chaudron 2018-08-23 08:05:03 UTC
Also how many traffic flows were you using, and what was changing? MAC/IP/UDP etc. I could not get this from the spreadsheet.

Comment 7 Bob Fubel 2018-08-29 00:50:39 UTC
Created attachment 1479376 [details]
Xena2544 tester file

Comment 8 Bob Fubel 2018-08-29 00:58:33 UTC
The system was tuned correctly. There is sometimes a variation in the zero loss test. if a packet is dropped in the binary search the test is not repeated and that limits the top end of the test. To account for this I run the test several times to make sure the level we see is consitant. 

I have attached the Xena File. The test is being run using vsperf to drive the xena. 

If you would like you can loging to the system to look at any setting. 
netqe15.knqe.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com

Just email/IRC me 'bfubel' to setup a time. so I will not have anything on the system and back in the state. 

NIC: Intel Ethernet
10G 2P X520

Comment 9 Bob Fubel 2018-08-30 14:35:33 UTC
Created attachment 1479825 [details]
RFC2544 Configuration file for Xena

Comment 10 Bob Fubel 2018-08-30 14:36:03 UTC
Comment on attachment 1479376 [details]
Xena2544 tester file

Wrong File

Comment 12 Eelco Chaudron 2018-08-30 15:12:16 UTC
I've been running some tests on my setup using the Xena2544 interface directly with XL710 cards and the throughput for 5 iterations of a 60seconds run with 256 bytes packets are quite stable and do not differ between 2.9 and 2.10.

I've attached two pictures with the results from the Xena console.

It might be related to the driver you are using, or something else specific to your setup. 

Would it be possible to get access to your setup sometime next week during my day (CET time zone)?

If you let me know the Xena and ports used I can manually trigger the tests. Login information for your system and how to restart the VM (testpmd) would also help.

Comment 13 Eelco Chaudron 2018-08-30 15:12:55 UTC
Created attachment 1479830 [details]
OVS 2.9 xena results

Comment 14 Eelco Chaudron 2018-08-30 15:13:29 UTC
Created attachment 1479831 [details]
OVS 2.10 xena results

Comment 17 Bob Fubel 2018-09-13 23:52:46 UTC
I change the Emulator Threads like you sugested and it didn't seem impact the preformace hits I am seeing.


cmd : /bin/bash -c "sudo -E taskset -c 1 /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -m 8192 -smp 3 -cpu host,migratable=off -drive if=ide,file=rhel1Q.qcow2 -boot c --enable-kvm -monitor unix:/tmp/vm0monitor,server,nowait -object memory-backend-file,id=mem,size=8192M,mem-path=/dev/hugepages,share=on -numa node,memdev=mem -mem-prealloc -nographic -vnc :0 -name Client0 -snapshot -net none -no-reboot -chardev socket,id=char0,path=/var/run/openvswitch/dpdkvhostuserclient0,server -netdev type=vhost-user,id=net1,chardev=char0,vhostforce -device virtio-net-pci,mac=00:00:00:00:00:01,netdev=net1,csum=off,mrg_rxbuf=off,gso=off,guest_tso4=off,guest_tso6=off,guest_ecn=off -chardev socket,id=char1,path=/var/run/openvswitch/dpdkvhostuserclient1,server -netdev type=vhost-user,id=net2,chardev=char1,vhostforce -device virtio-net-pci,mac=00:00:00:00:00:02,netdev=net2,csum=off,mrg_rxbuf=off,gso=off,guest_tso4=off,guest_tso6=off,guest_ecn=off"
cmd : sudo taskset -c -p 1 72423
cmd : sudo taskset -c -p 9 72424
cmd : sudo taskset -c -p 11 72425

Comment 18 Eelco Chaudron 2018-09-17 06:40:07 UTC
Closing this BZ as a duplicate of 1628965, as according to emails this is the new bug for tracking the issue.

On 14 Sep 2018, at 18:57, Christian Trautman wrote:

> Just to clarify, the performance issue is only when updating to qemu 2.12.
>
> All tests with 7.5 with qemu 2.10 have not had a problem with either ovs 2.9 or ovs 2.10.
>
> We closed the previous bug and opened a new one to get the information precise and easier to follow.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628965
>
> -Christian,
>

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1628965 ***