Hi Tejun, > Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 03/31/2016 08:14:35 PM: > > Hello, Michael. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound > > > workqueues. workqueue becomes a convenience thing which manages > > > worker pools and there shouldn't be any difference between workqueue > > > workers and kthreads in terms of behavior. > > > > I agree that there really shouldn't be any performance difference, but the > > tests I've run show otherwise. I have no idea why and I hadn't time yet to > > investigate it. > > I'd be happy to help digging into what's going on. If kvm wants full > control over the worker thread, kvm can use workqueue as a pure > threadpool. Schedule a work item to grab a worker thread with the > matching attributes and keep using it as it'd a kthread. While that > wouldn't be able to take advantage of work item flushing and so on, > it'd still be a simpler way to manage worker threads and the extra > stuff like cgroup membership handling doesn't have to be duplicated. My concern is that we trade-off performance for simpler management of worker threads. With the three models I've tested (current vhost models, workqueues-based (1) and shared threads based (2)), workqueues-based ones gave the worst performance results :( > > > > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads... > > > > > > What sort of optimizations are we talking about? > > > > Well, if we take Evlis (1) as for the theoretical base, there could be > > benefit of doing I/O scheduling inside the vhost. > > Yeah, if that actually is beneficial, take full control of the > kworker thread. > > Thanks. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/286858 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cgroups/13808 > -- > tejun > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
