My tree is ok. Looks like your patch was developed on top of some other tree, not plan upstream linux, so git am fails. I applied it using patch and some manual tweaking, and it seems to work for me but please do test it in linux-next and confirm - will push to a linux-next branch in my tree soon. On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 04:40:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > Hi MST/Jens, > > Do we need more review here or are we ok with the code and the test matrix ? > > If we're ok, we need to decide if this goes through virtio PR or block PR. > > Cheers, > > -Max. > > On 9/14/2021 3:22 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 05:50:21PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 9/6/2021 6:09 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi 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 > > > > I ran fio randread benchmarks with 4k, 16k, 64k, and 128k at iodepth 1, > > > > 8, and 64 on two vCPUs. The results look fine, there is no significant > > > > regression. > > > > > > > > iodepth=1 and iodepth=64 are very consistent. For some reason the > > > > iodepth=8 has significant variance but I don't think it's the fault of > > > > this patch. > > > > > > > > Fio results and the Jupyter notebook export are available here (check > > > > out benchmark.html to see the graphs): > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/stefanha/virt-playbooks/-/tree/virtio-blk-sgl-allocation-benchmark/notebook > > > > > > > > Guest: > > > > - Fedora 34 > > > > - Linux v5.14 > > > > - 2 vCPUs (pinned), 4 GB RAM (single host NUMA node) > > > > - 1 IOThread (pinned) > > > > - virtio-blk aio=native,cache=none,format=raw > > > > - QEMU 6.1.0 > > > > > > > > Host: > > > > - RHEL 8.3 > > > > - Linux 4.18.0-240.22.1.el8_3.x86_64 > > > > - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4214 CPU @ 2.20GHz > > > > - Intel Optane DC P4800X > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > Thanks, Stefan. > > > > > > Would you like me to add some of the results in my commit msg ? or Tested-By > > > sign ? > > Thanks, there's no need to change the commit description. > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
