On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:07:52PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 9/28/2021 9:47 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 08:39:30PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 9/27/2021 11:09 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 05:55:18PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > To optimize performance, set the affinity of the block device tagset > > > > > according to the virtio device affinity. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c > > > > > index 9b3bd083b411..1c68c3e0ebf9 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c > > > > > @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev) > > > > > memset(&vblk->tag_set, 0, sizeof(vblk->tag_set)); > > > > > vblk->tag_set.ops = &virtio_mq_ops; > > > > > vblk->tag_set.queue_depth = queue_depth; > > > > > - vblk->tag_set.numa_node = NUMA_NO_NODE; > > > > > + vblk->tag_set.numa_node = virtio_dev_to_node(vdev); > > > > > vblk->tag_set.flags = BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE; > > > > > vblk->tag_set.cmd_size = > > > > > sizeof(struct virtblk_req) + > > > > I implemented NUMA affinity in the past and could not demonstrate a > > > > performance improvement: > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2020-June/048248.html > > > > > > > > The pathological case is when a guest with vNUMA has the virtio-blk-pci > > > > device on the "wrong" host NUMA node. Then memory accesses should cross > > > > NUMA nodes. Still, it didn't seem to matter. > > > I think the reason you didn't see any improvement is since you didn't use > > > the right device for the node query. See my patch 1/2. > > That doesn't seem to be the case. Please see > > drivers/base/core.c:device_add(): > > > > /* use parent numa_node */ > > if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE)) > > set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent)); > > > > IMO it's cleaner to use dev_to_node(&vdev->dev) than to directly access > > the parent. > > > > Have I missed something? > > but dev_to_node(dev) is 0 IMO. > > who set it to NUMA_NO_NODE ? drivers/virtio/virtio.c:register_virtio_device(): device_initialize(&dev->dev); drivers/base/core.c:device_initialize(): set_dev_node(dev, -1); Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
