On 11/14/2015 7:41 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:34:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:21:07PM -0800, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote: >>> Improves cacheline transfer flow of available ring header. >>> >>> Virtqueues are implemented as a pair of rings, one producer->consumer >>> avail ring and one consumer->producer used ring; preceding the >>> avail ring in memory are two contiguous u16 fields -- avail->flags >>> and avail->idx. A producer posts work by writing to avail->idx and >>> a consumer reads avail->idx. >>> >>> The flags and idx fields only need to be written by a producer CPU >>> and only read by a consumer CPU; when the producer and consumer are >>> running on different CPUs and the virtio_ring code is structured to >>> only have source writes/sink reads, we can continuously transfer the >>> avail header cacheline between 'M' states between cores. This flow >>> optimizes core -> core bandwidth on certain CPUs. >>> >>> (see: "Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 15h Processors", >>> Section 11.6; similar language appears in the 10h guide and should >>> apply to CPUs w/ exclusive caches, using LLC as a transfer cache) >>> >>> Unfortunately the existing virtio_ring code issued reads to the >>> avail->idx and read-modify-writes to avail->flags on the producer. >>> >>> This change shadows the flags and index fields in producer memory; >>> the vring code now reads from the shadows and only ever writes to >>> avail->flags and avail->idx, allowing the cacheline to transfer >>> core -> core optimally. >> Sounds logical, I'll apply this after a bit of testing >> of my own, thanks! > Thanks! Venkatesh: Is it that your patch only applies to CPUs w/ exclusive caches? Do you have perf data on Intel CPUs? For the perf metric you provide, why not L1-dcache-load-misses which is more meaning full? > >>> In a concurrent version of vring_bench, the time required for >>> 10,000,000 buffer checkout/returns was reduced by ~2% (average >>> across many runs) on an AMD Piledriver (15h) CPU: >>> >>> (w/o shadowing): >>> Performance counter stats for './vring_bench': >>> 5,451,082,016 L1-dcache-loads >>> ... >>> 2.221477739 seconds time elapsed >>> >>> (w/ shadowing): >>> Performance counter stats for './vring_bench': >>> 5,405,701,361 L1-dcache-loads >>> ... >>> 2.168405376 seconds time elapsed >> Could you supply the full command line you used >> to test this? > Yes -- > > perf stat -e L1-dcache-loads,L1-dcache-load-misses,L1-dcache-stores \ > ./vring_bench > > The standard version of vring_bench is single-threaded (posted on this list > but never submitted); my tests were with a version that has a worker thread > polling the VQ. How should I share it? Should I just attach it to an email > here? > >>> The further away (in a NUMA sense) virtio producers and consumers are >>> from each other, the more we expect to benefit. Physical implementations >>> of virtio devices and implementations of virtio where the consumer polls >>> vring avail indexes (vhost) should also benefit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Here's a similar patch for the ring itself: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/10/111 >> >> Does it help you as well? > I tested your patch in our environment; our virtqueues do not support > Indirect entries and your patch does not manage to elide many writes, so I > do not see a performance difference. In an environment with Indirect, your > patch will likely be a win. > > (My patch gets most of its win by eliminating reads on the producer; when > the producer reads avail fields at the same time the consumer is polling, > we see cacheline transfers that hurt performance. Your patch eliminates > writes, which is nice, but our tests w/ polling are not as sensitive to > writes from the producer.) > > I have two quick comments on your patch -- > 1) I think you need to kfree vq->avail when deleting the virtqueue. > > 2) Should we avoid allocating a cache for virtqueues that are not > performance critical? (ex: virtio-scsi eventq/controlq, virtio-net > controlq) > > Should I post comments in reply to the original patch email (given that it > is ~2 months old)? > > Thanks! > -- vs; > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
