Re: [PATCH] block: virtio_blk: don't hold spin lock during world switch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2014-05-29 21:34, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2014-05-29 20:49, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, it isn't necessary to hold lock of vblk->vq_lock
>>>> when notifying hypervisor about queued I/O.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, virtqueue_notify() will cause world switch and
>>>> it may take long time on some hypervisors(such as, qemu-arm),
>>>> so it isn't good to hold the lock and block other vCPUs.
>>>>
>>>> On arm64 quad core VM(qemu-kvm), the patch can increase I/O
>>>> performance a lot with VIRTIO_RING_F_EVENT_IDX enabled:
>>>>          - without the patch: 14K IOPS
>>>>          - with the patch: 34K IOPS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patch looks good to me. I don't see a hit on my qemu-kvm testing, but it
>>> definitely makes sense and I can see it hurting in other places.
>>
>>
>> It isn't easy to observe the improvement on x86 VM, especially
>> with few vCPUs, because qemu-system-x86_64 only takes
>> several microseconds to handle the notification, but on arm64, it
>> may take hundreds of microseconds, so the improvement is
>> obvious on arm VM.
>>
>> I hope this patch can be merged, at least arm VM can benefit
>> from it.
>
>
> If Rusty agrees, I'd like to add it for 3.16 with a stable marker.

Interesting, even on x86, I still can observe the improvement
when the numjobs is set as 2 in the fio script(see commit log), but
when numjobs is set as 4, 8, 12, the difference isn't obvious between
patched kernel and non-patched kernel.

1, environment
- host: 2sockets, each CPU(4cores, 2 threads), total 16 logical cores
- guest: 16cores, 8GB ram
- guest kernel: 3.15-rc7-next with patch[1]
- fio: the script in commit log with numjobs set as 2

2, result
- without the patch: ~104K IOPS
- with the patch: ~140K IOPS


Rusty, considered the same trick has been applied in virt-scsi,
do you agree to take the same approach in virt-blk too?


[1], http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=140135041423441&w=2

Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux