On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:53:47PM +0200, Abel Gordon wrote: > > > Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 26/11/2013 08:05:00 PM: > > > > > Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am Razya Ladelsky, I work at IBM Haifa virtualization team, which > > > developed Elvis, presented by Abel Gordon at the last KVM forum: > > > ELVIS video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EyweibHfEs > > > ELVIS slides: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzyAwvVlQckeQmpnOHM5SnB5UVE > > > > > > > > > According to the discussions that took place at the forum, upstreaming > > > some of the Elvis approaches seems to be a good idea, which we would > like > > > to pursue. > > > > > > Our plan for the first patches is the following: > > > > > > 1.Shared vhost thread between mutiple devices > > > This patch creates a worker thread and worker queue shared across > multiple > > > virtio devices > > > We would like to modify the patch posted in > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/ > > 3dc6a3ce7bcbe87363c2df8a6b6fee0c14615766 > > > to limit a vhost thread to serve multiple devices only if they belong > to > > > the same VM as Paolo suggested to avoid isolation or cgroups concerns. > > > > > > Another modification is related to the creation and removal of vhost > > > threads, which will be discussed next. > > > > I think this is an exceptionally bad idea. > > > > We shouldn't throw away isolation without exhausting every other > > possibility. > > Seems you have missed the important details here. > Anthony, we are aware you are concerned about isolation > and you believe we should not share a single vhost thread across > multiple VMs. That's why Razya proposed to change the patch > so we will serve multiple virtio devices using a single vhost thread > "only if the devices belong to the same VM". This series of patches > will not allow two different VMs to share the same vhost thread. > So, I don't see why this will be throwing away isolation and why > this could be a "exceptionally bad idea". > > By the way, I remember that during the KVM forum a similar > approach of having a single data plane thread for many devices > was discussed.... > > We've seen very positive results from adding threads. We should also > > look at scheduling. > > ...and we have also seen exceptionally negative results from > adding threads, both for vhost and data-plane. If you have lot of idle > time/cores > then it makes sense to run multiple threads. But IMHO in many scenarios you > don't have lot of idle time/cores.. and if you have them you would probably > prefer to run more VMs/VCPUs....hosting a single SMP VM when you have > enough physical cores to run all the VCPU threads and the I/O threads is > not a > realistic scenario. > > That's why we are proposing to implement a mechanism that will enable > the management stack to configure 1 thread per I/O device (as it is today) > or 1 thread for many I/O devices (belonging to the same VM). > > > Once you are scheduling multiple guests in a single vhost device, you > > now create a whole new class of DoS attacks in the best case scenario. > > Again, we are NOT proposing to schedule multiple guests in a single > vhost thread. We are proposing to schedule multiple devices belonging > to the same guest in a single (or multiple) vhost thread/s. > I guess a question then becomes why have multiple devices? > > > > > 2. Sysfs mechanism to add and remove vhost threads > > > This patch allows us to add and remove vhost threads dynamically. > > > > > > A simpler way to control the creation of vhost threads is statically > > > determining the maximum number of virtio devices per worker via a > kernel > > > module parameter (which is the way the previously mentioned patch is > > > currently implemented) > > > > > > I'd like to ask for advice here about the more preferable way to go: > > > Although having the sysfs mechanism provides more flexibility, it may > be a > > > good idea to start with a simple static parameter, and have the first > > > patches as simple as possible. What do you think? > > > > > > 3.Add virtqueue polling mode to vhost > > > Have the vhost thread poll the virtqueues with high I/O rate for new > > > buffers , and avoid asking the guest to kick us. > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/ > > 26616133fafb7855cc80fac070b0572fd1aaf5d0 > > > > Ack on this. > > :) > > Regards, > Abel. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Anthony Liguori > > > > > 4. vhost statistics > > > This patch introduces a set of statistics to monitor different > performance > > > metrics of vhost and our polling and I/O scheduling mechanisms. The > > > statistics are exposed using debugfs and can be easily displayed with a > > > > Python script (vhost_stat, based on the old kvm_stats) > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/ > > ac14206ea56939ecc3608dc5f978b86fa322e7b0 > > > > > > > > > 5. Add heuristics to improve I/O scheduling > > > This patch enhances the round-robin mechanism with a set of heuristics > to > > > decide when to leave a virtqueue and proceed to the next. > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/ > > f6a4f1a5d6b82dc754e8af8af327b8d0f043dc4d > > > > > > This patch improves the handling of the requests by the vhost thread, > but > > > could perhaps be delayed to a > > > later time , and not submitted as one of the first Elvis patches. > > > I'd love to hear some comments about whether this patch needs to be > part > > > of the first submission. > > > > > > Any other feedback on this plan will be appreciated, > > > Thank you, > > > Razya > > -- 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
