On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:43:33PM +0100, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > On 22-02-2023 15:32, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:29:25PM +0100, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > > > On 08/02/2023 11:43, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/02/2023 22:57, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:32:02PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:53:58PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:45:39PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 11:14:46AM +0100, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [cc German] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For my MSc thesis project in collaboration with IBM > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/IBM/dpu-virtio-fs) we are looking to improve the > > > > > > > > > > performance of the virtio-fs driver in high throughput scenarios. We think > > > > > > > > > > the main bottleneck is the fact that the virtio-fs driver does not support > > > > > > > > > > multi-queue (while the spec does). A big factor in this is that our setup on > > > > > > > > > > the virtio-fs device-side (a DPU) does not easily allow multiple cores to > > > > > > > > > > tend to a single virtio queue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting limitation in DPU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virtqueues are single-consumer queues anyway. Sharing them between > > > > > > > multiple threads would be expensive. I think using multiqueue is natural > > > > > > > and not specific to DPUs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we create multiple threads (a thread pool) on DPU and let these > > > > > > threads process requests in parallel (While there is only one virt > > > > > > queue). > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is what we had done in virtiofsd. One thread is dedicated to > > > > > > pull the requests from virt queue and then pass the request to thread > > > > > > pool to process it. And that seems to help with performance in > > > > > > certain cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that possible on DPU? That itself can give a nice performance > > > > > > boost for certain workloads without having to implement multiqueue > > > > > > actually. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just curious. I am not opposed to the idea of multiqueue. I am > > > > > > just curious about the kind of performance gain (if any) it can > > > > > > provide. And will this be helpful for rust virtiofsd running on > > > > > > host as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Vivek > > > > > > > > > > > There is technically nothing preventing us from consuming a single queue on > > > > > multiple cores, however our current Virtio implementation (DPU-side) is set > > > > > up with the assumption that you should never want to do that (concurrency > > > > > mayham around the Virtqueues and the DMAs). So instead of putting all the > > > > > work into reworking the implementation to support that and still incur the > > > > > big overhead, we see it more fitting to amend the virtio-fs driver with > > > > > multi-queue support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it just a theory at this point of time or have you implemented > > > > > > it and seeing significant performance benefit with multiqueue? > > > > > > > > > > It is a theory, but we are currently seeing that using the single request > > > > > queue, the single core attending to that queue on the DPU is reasonably > > > > > close to being fully saturated. > > > > > > > > > > > And will this be helpful for rust virtiofsd running on > > > > > > host as well? > > > > > > > > > > I figure this would be dependent on the workload and the users-needs. > > > > > Having many cores concurrently pulling on their own virtq and then > > > > > immediately process the request locally would of course improve performance. > > > > > But we are offloading all this work to the DPU, for providing > > > > > high-throughput cloud services. > > > > > > > > I think Vivek is getting at whether your code processes requests > > > > sequentially or in parallel. A single thread processing the virtqueue > > > > that hands off requests to worker threads or uses io_uring to perform > > > > I/O asynchronously will perform differently from a single thread that > > > > processes requests sequentially in a blocking fashion. Multiqueue is not > > > > necessary for parallelism, but the single queue might become a > > > > bottleneck. > > > > > > Requests are handled non-blocking with remote IO on the DPU. Our current > > > architecture is as follows: > > > T1: Tends to the Virtq, parses FUSE to remote IO and fires off the > > > asynchronous remote IO. > > > T2: Polls for completion on the remote IO and parses it back to FUSE, puts > > > the FUSE buffers in a completion queue of T1. > > > T1: Handles the Virtio completion and DMA of the requests in the CQ. > > > > > > Thread 1 is busy polling on its two queues (Virtq and CQ) with equal > > > priority, thread 2 is busy polling as well. This setup is not really > > > optimal, but we are working within the constraints of both our DPU and > > > remote IO stack. > > > > Why does T1 need to handle VIRTIO completion and DMA requests instead of > > T2? > > > > Stefan > > No good reason other than the fact that the concurrency safety of our DPU's > virtio-fs library requires this. > > > I had been doing some performance benchmarking for virtio-fs and I found > > some old results. > > > > https://github.com/rhvgoyal/virtiofs-tests/tree/master/performance-results/feb-10-2021 > > > > While running on top of local fs, with bs=4K, with single queue I could > > achieve more than 600MB/s. > > > > NAME WORKLOAD Bandwidth IOPS > > default seqread-psync 625.0mb 156.2k > > no-tpool seqread-psync 660.8mb 165.2k > > > > But catch here I think is that host is doing the caching. In your > > case I am assuming there is no caching at DPU and all the I/O is > > going to remote storage (which might be doing caching in memory). > > > > Anyway, point I am trying to make is that even with single vq, virtiofs > > can push a reasonable amount of I/O. > > > > I will be cuirous to find how multiqueue can improve these numbers > > further. > > We are currently seeing the following throughput numbers: > https://github.com/IBM/dpu-virtio-fs/blob/d0e0560546e2da86b0022a69abe02ab6ac4a6541/experiments/results/graphs/nulldev_tp.pdf > This is using a null device implementation in the DPU (immediately return > reads and writes in the FUSE file system). All using a single vq and one DPU > thread attending to it. On the host this experiment is using two fio threads > pinned to the DPU's NUMA node. We see no additional throughput when using > more than two threads. As per this chart, you are getting around 1GB/s with 4K size. So that's roughly 256K IOPS with single queue. Not too bad I would say. Would be interesting to see how multiqueue support impacts that number. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
