(Responding again without gmail, as the last email hit a failure when responding to the lists..) On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 16:17 -0400, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:20:56PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > The performance test is not decent, though. I used "fio" random > > read against a "null_blk" device sitting on top of "percpu_tags", > > which is not exactly how "percpu_ida" is used. This is another > > reason I am posting - an advice on how to properly test is very > > appreciated. > > Hi Nicholas et al, > > I expect the best possible performance test for percpu_ida/percpu_tags > would be to stress drivers/vhost/scsi.c vhost_scsi_get_tag() function. > > I tried to make such test by attaching ramdisk to a virtual machine > (similar to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/10/347) but ultimately failed > to configure the necessary environment - the stock qemu does not have > -vhost-scsi parameter. > > Could you please advice how to make this configuration exposed to guests? > > o- / ..................................................................... [...] > o- backstores .......................................................... [...] > | o- block .............................................. [Storage Objects: 0] > | o- fileio ............................................. [Storage Objects: 0] > | o- pscsi .............................................. [Storage Objects: 0] > | o- ramdisk ............................................ [Storage Objects: 1] > | o- rda .............................................. [(1.0GiB) activated] > o- iscsi ........................................................ [Targets: 0] > o- loopback ..................................................... [Targets: 0] > o- vhost ........................................................ [Targets: 1] > o- naa.5001405b171ee405 .......................................... [TPGs: 1] > o- tpg1 .............................. [naa.5001405983a5b1a4, no-gen-acls] > o- acls ...................................................... [ACLs: 0] > o- luns ...................................................... [LUNs: 1] > o- lun0 ................................................ [ramdisk/rda] > So qemu expects '-device vhost-scsi-pci' with the following syntax: -device vhost-scsi-pci,wwpn=naa.5001405b171ee405,num_queues=1,cmd_per_lun=64 For best results I'd recommend setting the IRQ affinity for each of the virtio*_request MSI-X vectors to a dedicated vCPU in KVM guest. Also, I've been using the scsi-mq prototype for small block I/O performance testing in order to push vhost-scsi and avoid the legacy scsi_request_fn() bottleneck(s) with virtio-scsi, and now that hch's scsi-mq work (CC'ed) has been merged upstream in v3.17-rc0, it would be a good time for a scsi-mq + virtio-scsi + vhost-scsi performance checkpoint. ;) --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
