On 9/1/21 4:25 PM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 9/1/2021 6:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 9/1/21 8:58 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>> On 9/1/2021 5:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:14:34PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>> No need to pre-allocate a big buffer for the IO SGL anymore. If a device >>>>> has lots of deep queues, preallocation for the sg list can consume >>>>> substantial amounts of memory. For HW virtio-blk device, nr_hw_queues >>>>> can be 64 or 128 and each queue's depth might be 128. This means the >>>>> resulting preallocation for the data SGLs is big. >>>>> >>>>> Switch to runtime allocation for SGL for lists longer than 2 entries. >>>>> This is the approach used by NVMe drivers so it should be reasonable for >>>>> virtio block as well. Runtime SGL allocation has always been the case >>>>> for the legacy I/O path so this is nothing new. >>>>> >>>>> The preallocated small SGL depends on SG_CHAIN so if the ARCH doesn't >>>>> support SG_CHAIN, use only runtime allocation for the SGL. >>>>> >>>>> Re-organize the setup of the IO request to fit the new sg chain >>>>> mechanism. >>>>> >>>>> No performance degradation was seen (fio libaio engine with 16 jobs and >>>>> 128 iodepth): >>>>> >>>>> IO size IOPs Rand Read (before/after) IOPs Rand Write (before/after) >>>>> -------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- >>>>> 512B 318K/316K 329K/325K >>>>> >>>>> 4KB 323K/321K 353K/349K >>>>> >>>>> 16KB 199K/208K 250K/275K >>>>> >>>>> 128KB 36K/36.1K 39.2K/41.7K >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Israel Rukshin <israelr@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Could you use something to give confidence intervals maybe? >>>> As it is it looks like a 1-2% regression for 512B and 4KB. >>> 1%-2% is not a regression. It's a device/env/test variance. >>> >>> This is just one test results. I run it many times and got difference by >>> +/- 2%-3% in each run for each sides. >>> >>> Even if I run same driver without changes I get 2%-3% difference between >>> runs. >>> >>> If you have a perf test suite for virtio-blk it will be great if you can >>> run it, or maybe Feng Li has. >> You're adding an allocation to the hot path, and a free to the >> completion hot path. It's not unreasonable to expect that there could be >> performance implications associated with that. Which would be >> particularly evident with 1 segment requests, as the results would seem >> to indicate as well. > > but for sg_nents <= 2 there is no dynamic allocation also in this patch > exactly as we do in nvmf RDMA and FC for example. My quick read missed that, which is why you're using chaining. Then it looks very reasonable to me. >> Probably needs better testing. A profile of a peak run before and after >> and a diff of the two might also be interesting. > > I'll run ezfio test suite with stronger virtio-blk device that reach > > 800KIOPs That'd be better, and preferably a test with pinning etc so that you can show more consistent results. Just reading your table does indeed look like there's a performance degradation, even if you preface it by saying there is none. It would need better explaining, but preferably better testing. >> The common idiom for situations like this is to have an inline part that >> holds 1-2 segments, and then only punt to alloc if you need more than >> that. As the number of segments grows, the cost per request matters >> less. > > isn't this the case here ? or am I missing something ? it totally is, I was the one missing that. -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
