On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:26:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:14:44PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:55:51PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:48:15PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:02PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:14:57PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > > > > > QEMU 2.9.0 will introduce polling feature for AioContext that instead > > > > > > of blocking syscalls polls for events without blocking. This means > > > > > > that polling can be in most cases faster but it also increases CPU > > > > > > utilization. > > > > > > > > > > > > To address this issue QEMU implements self-tuning algorithm that > > > > > > modifies the current polling time to adapt to different workloads > > > > > > and it can also fallback to blocking syscalls. > > > > > > > > > > > > For each IOThread this all is controlled by three parameters, > > > > > > poll-max-ns, poll-grow and poll-shrink. If parameter poll-max-ns > > > > > > is set to 0 it disables the polling, if it is omitted the default > > > > > > behavior is used and any value more than 0 enables polling. > > > > > > Parameters poll-grow and poll-shrink configure how the self-tuning > > > > > > algorithm will adapt the current polling time. If they are omitted > > > > > > or set to 0 default values will be used. > > > > > > > > > > With my app developer hat on I have to wonder how an app is supposed > > > > > to figure out what to set these parameters to ? It has been difficult > > > > > enough figuring out existing QEMU block tunables, but at least most > > > > > of those can be set dependant on the type of storage use on the host > > > > > side. Tunables whose use depends on the guest workload are harder to > > > > > use since it largely involves predicting the unknown. IOW is there > > > > > a compelling reason to add these low level parameters that are tightly > > > > > coupled to the specific algorithm that QEMU happens to use today. > > > > > > > > I agree that it's probably way to complicated for management applications, > > > > but there is a small issue with QEMU. Currently it you don't specify > > > > anything the polling is enabled with some reasonable default value and base > > > > on experience with QEMU I'm not planning to count on that they will not change > > > > the default behavior in the future. To explicitly enable polling you need > > > > to set poll-max-ns to some value more than 0. We would have to check qemu > > > > source code, and define the default value in our code in order to let > > > > users explicitly enable polling. > > > > > > The QEMU commit says polling is now enabled by default without needing > > > to set poll-max-ns AFAICT > > > > > > commit cdd7abfdba9287a289c404dfdcb02316f9ffee7d > > > Author: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Thu Jan 26 17:01:19 2017 +0000 > > > > > > iothread: enable AioContext polling by default > > > > > > IOThread AioContexts are likely to consist only of event sources like > > > virtqueue ioeventfds and LinuxAIO completion eventfds that are pollable > > > from userspace (without system calls). > > > > > > We recently merged the AioContext polling feature but didn't enable it > > > by default yet. I have gone back over the performance data on the > > > mailing list and picked a default polling value that gave good results. > > > > > > Let's enable AioContext polling by default so users don't have another > > > switch they need to set manually. If performance regressions are found > > > we can still disable this for the QEMU 2.9 release. > > > > > > > > The QEMU commits say the tunables all default to sane parameters so > > > > > I'm inclined to say we ignore them at the libvirt level entirely. > > > > > > > > Yes, it would be way batter to have only <polling enable='yes|no'> end let > > > > QEMU deal with the sane values for all parameters but that would mean to come > > > > up with the sane values ourselves or modify QEMU to add another property that > > > > would simply control whether it is enabled or not. > > > > > > I'm saying don't even add that. > > > > > > Do exactly nothing and just rely on the QEMU defaults here. This is not > > > affecting guest ABI at all so it doesn't matter if QEMU changes its > > > defaults later. In fact if QEMU changes defaults based on newer performance > > > measurements, it is a good thing if libvirt hasn't hardcoded all its VM > > > configs to the old default. > > > > What if someone would like to disable it even if QEMU thinks that the > > performance is good? This patch series doesn't hardcode anything into > > VM config. If you don't set the polling element at all Libvirt will follow > > the QEMU defaults and only the live XML would contain current state of > > polling with default values loaded from QEMU. > > > > This patch series ads a possibility to explicitly configure the polling if > > someone want's to do that for some reason, but it also preserve the benefit > > when you just don't care about it and you want to use the default. > > > > If you still think that we should not export this feature at all, well we > > don't have to. The use-case that you've described is still possible with > > this series, it only adds extra functionality on top of that. > > I'm very wary of adding config parameters in libvirt just because they > exist in QEMU, particularly when the parameters are totally specific to > an algorithm that just happens to be the one implemented right now. We've > no idea if QEMU will stick with this algorithm or change it entirely, and > if the latter, then any config parameters will be likely meaningless for > any other algorithm. I can understand why QEMU would expose them on its > CLI, but I don't feel they are a good fit for exposing up the stack, > particularly given a lack of any guidance as to how people might consider > changing the values, other than random uninformed guesswork. Yes, that's true and I had the same worrying feeling about the parameters specifically tied to QEMU algorithm, but I thought that it would be nice to export them anyway. Let's ignore this series for now and if someone asks for a feature to disable polling we can revive it. Pavel > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
