On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 01:13:14PM -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > On 11/17/20 10:40 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:18:59PM -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > >> The following kernel patches were made over Michael's vhost branch: > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git/log/?h=vhost > >> > >> and the vhost-scsi bug fix patchset: > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20201112170008.GB1555653@stefanha-x1.localdomain/T/#t > >> > >> And the qemu patch was made over the qemu master branch. > >> > >> vhost-scsi currently supports multiple queues with the num_queues > >> setting, but we end up with a setup where the guest's scsi/block > >> layer can do a queue per vCPU and the layers below vhost can do > >> a queue per CPU. vhost-scsi will then do a num_queue virtqueues, > >> but all IO gets set on and completed on a single vhost-scsi thread. > >> After 2 - 4 vqs this becomes a bottleneck. > >> > >> This patchset allows us to create a worker thread per IO vq, so we > >> can better utilize multiple CPUs with the multiple queues. It > >> implments Jason's suggestion to create the initial worker like > >> normal, then create the extra workers for IO vqs with the > >> VHOST_SET_VRING_ENABLE ioctl command added in this patchset. > > > > How does userspace find out the tids and set their CPU affinity? > > > > When we create the worker thread we add it to the device owner's cgroup, > so we end up inheriting those settings like affinity. > > However, are you more asking about finer control like if the guest is > doing mq, and the mq hw queue is bound to cpu0, it would perform > better if we could bind vhost vq's worker thread to cpu0? I think the > problem might is if you are in the cgroup then we can't set a specific > threads CPU affinity to just one specific CPU. So you can either do > cgroups or not. > > > > What is the meaning of the new VHOST_SET_VRING_ENABLE ioctl? It doesn't > > really "enable" or "disable" the vq, requests are processed regardless. > > > > Yeah, I agree. The problem I've mentioned before is: > > 1. For net and vsock, it's not useful because the vqs are hard coded in > the kernel and userspace, so you can't disable a vq and you never need > to enable one. > > 2. vdpa has it's own enable ioctl. > > 3. For scsi, because we already are doing multiple vqs based on the > num_queues value, we have to have some sort of compat support and > code to detect if userspace is even going to send the new ioctl. > In this patchset, compat just meant enable/disable the extra functionality > of extra worker threads for a vq. We will still use the vq if > userspace set it up. > > > > The purpose of the ioctl isn't clear to me because the kernel could > > automatically create 1 thread per vq without a new ioctl. On the other > > hand, if userspace is supposed to control worker threads then a > > different interface would be more powerful: > > The main request I have is to clearly define the meaning of the VHOST_SET_VRING_ENABLE ioctl. If you want to keep it as-is for now and the vhost maintainers are happy with then, that's okay. It should just be documented so that userspace and other vhost driver authors understand what it's supposed to do. > My preference has been: > > 1. If we were to ditch cgroups, then add a new interface that would allow > us to bind threads to a specific CPU, so that it lines up with the guest's > mq to CPU mapping. A 1:1 vCPU/vq->CPU mapping isn't desirable in all cases. The CPU affinity is a userspace policy decision. The host kernel should provide a mechanism but not the policy. That way userspace can decide which workers are shared by multiple vqs and on which physical CPUs they should run. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
