On 9/1/21 8:58 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 9/1/2021 5:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:14:34PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>> No need to pre-allocate a big buffer for the IO SGL anymore. If a device >>> has lots of deep queues, preallocation for the sg list can consume >>> substantial amounts of memory. For HW virtio-blk device, nr_hw_queues >>> can be 64 or 128 and each queue's depth might be 128. This means the >>> resulting preallocation for the data SGLs is big. >>> >>> Switch to runtime allocation for SGL for lists longer than 2 entries. >>> This is the approach used by NVMe drivers so it should be reasonable for >>> virtio block as well. Runtime SGL allocation has always been the case >>> for the legacy I/O path so this is nothing new. >>> >>> The preallocated small SGL depends on SG_CHAIN so if the ARCH doesn't >>> support SG_CHAIN, use only runtime allocation for the SGL. >>> >>> Re-organize the setup of the IO request to fit the new sg chain >>> mechanism. >>> >>> No performance degradation was seen (fio libaio engine with 16 jobs and >>> 128 iodepth): >>> >>> IO size IOPs Rand Read (before/after) IOPs Rand Write (before/after) >>> -------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- >>> 512B 318K/316K 329K/325K >>> >>> 4KB 323K/321K 353K/349K >>> >>> 16KB 199K/208K 250K/275K >>> >>> 128KB 36K/36.1K 39.2K/41.7K >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Israel Rukshin <israelr@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Could you use something to give confidence intervals maybe? >> As it is it looks like a 1-2% regression for 512B and 4KB. > > 1%-2% is not a regression. It's a device/env/test variance. > > This is just one test results. I run it many times and got difference by > +/- 2%-3% in each run for each sides. > > Even if I run same driver without changes I get 2%-3% difference between > runs. > > If you have a perf test suite for virtio-blk it will be great if you can > run it, or maybe Feng Li has. You're adding an allocation to the hot path, and a free to the completion hot path. It's not unreasonable to expect that there could be performance implications associated with that. Which would be particularly evident with 1 segment requests, as the results would seem to indicate as well. Probably needs better testing. A profile of a peak run before and after and a diff of the two might also be interesting. The common idiom for situations like this is to have an inline part that holds 1-2 segments, and then only punt to alloc if you need more than that. As the number of segments grows, the cost per request matters less. -- Jens Axboe
