All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:46:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200922174618.GV1989025@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200922174255.GC57620@redhat.com>

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:42:55PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:32:16PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > glib offers thread pools and it seems to support "exclusive" and "shared"
> > > thread pools.
> > > 
> > > https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Thread-Pools.html#g-thread-pool-new
> > > 
> > > Currently we use "exlusive" thread pools but its performance seems to be
> > > poor. I tried using "shared" thread pools and performance seems much
> > > better. I posted performance results here.
> > > 
> > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00080.html
> > > 
> > > So lets switch to shared thread pools. We can think of making it optional
> > > once somebody can show in what cases exclusive thread pools offer better
> > > results. For now, my simple performance tests across the board see
> > > better results with shared thread pools.
> > 
> > I'm really curious why  there's any perf difference between shared and
> > exclusive thread pools in the GLib impl.
> > 
> > Looking at the code the main difference between the two is appears to
> > be around the way threads are spawned, specifically around the scheduler
> > attributes assigned.
> > 
> > In the shared case, the threads in the pool will have their scheduler
> > attributes copied from the very first thread that calls g_thread_pool_new.
> > 
> > In the exclusive case, the threads in the pool will inherit their
> > scheduler attributes from the thread which pushs the job that
> > causes the worker thread to be created.
> > 
> > By schedular attributes, I mean all the items in the 'struct schedattr'
> > filled by sched_getattr()
> > 
> > IOW, if threads in virtiofsd have varying schedular attributes this
> > could possibly explain the difference in performance you see between
> > the two setups.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Few things.
> 
> - I think scheduler attributes are same for the thread creating
>   pool as well as for thread pushing the job for virtiofsd.
> 
> - My glib2 is old (2.58.3) and I think that did not have sched_getattr()
>   stuff.
> 
> - One difference I noticed is that in case of shared pool, it does not
>   create extra threads if client is doing one request at a time. While
>   exclusive pool seemed to push every request to a new thread in pool
>   in sort of round robin fashion. It feels keeping requests being served
>   from same thread helps in this particilar workload case.

Yeah, that does sound like a candidate for the cause. I wonder if that
was intentional in the GLib design or just an accidental impl they didn't
realize had performance implications. Might be worth filing a bug against
GLib if someone has free time & motivation to figure out a standalone
reproducer to demonstrate the performance difference in the GLib APIs.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:46:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200922174618.GV1989025@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200922174255.GC57620@redhat.com>

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:42:55PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:32:16PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > glib offers thread pools and it seems to support "exclusive" and "shared"
> > > thread pools.
> > > 
> > > https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Thread-Pools.html#g-thread-pool-new
> > > 
> > > Currently we use "exlusive" thread pools but its performance seems to be
> > > poor. I tried using "shared" thread pools and performance seems much
> > > better. I posted performance results here.
> > > 
> > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00080.html
> > > 
> > > So lets switch to shared thread pools. We can think of making it optional
> > > once somebody can show in what cases exclusive thread pools offer better
> > > results. For now, my simple performance tests across the board see
> > > better results with shared thread pools.
> > 
> > I'm really curious why  there's any perf difference between shared and
> > exclusive thread pools in the GLib impl.
> > 
> > Looking at the code the main difference between the two is appears to
> > be around the way threads are spawned, specifically around the scheduler
> > attributes assigned.
> > 
> > In the shared case, the threads in the pool will have their scheduler
> > attributes copied from the very first thread that calls g_thread_pool_new.
> > 
> > In the exclusive case, the threads in the pool will inherit their
> > scheduler attributes from the thread which pushs the job that
> > causes the worker thread to be created.
> > 
> > By schedular attributes, I mean all the items in the 'struct schedattr'
> > filled by sched_getattr()
> > 
> > IOW, if threads in virtiofsd have varying schedular attributes this
> > could possibly explain the difference in performance you see between
> > the two setups.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Few things.
> 
> - I think scheduler attributes are same for the thread creating
>   pool as well as for thread pushing the job for virtiofsd.
> 
> - My glib2 is old (2.58.3) and I think that did not have sched_getattr()
>   stuff.
> 
> - One difference I noticed is that in case of shared pool, it does not
>   create extra threads if client is doing one request at a time. While
>   exclusive pool seemed to push every request to a new thread in pool
>   in sort of round robin fashion. It feels keeping requests being served
>   from same thread helps in this particilar workload case.

Yeah, that does sound like a candidate for the cause. I wonder if that
was intentional in the GLib design or just an accidental impl they didn't
realize had performance implications. Might be worth filing a bug against
GLib if someone has free time & motivation to figure out a standalone
reproducer to demonstrate the performance difference in the GLib APIs.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-22 17:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-21 21:32 [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool Vivek Goyal
2020-09-21 21:32 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 12:03 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-09-22 12:03   ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2020-09-22 12:40   ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 12:40     ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:29   ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:29     ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 12:59 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-09-22 12:59   ` [Virtio-fs] " Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-09-22 17:42   ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:42     ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:46     ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2020-09-22 17:46       ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-09-23 12:22 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-09-23 12:22   ` [Virtio-fs] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-09-24  9:29 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-09-24  9:29   ` [Virtio-fs] " Dr. David Alan Gilbert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200922174618.GV1989025@redhat.com \
    --to=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtio-fs@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.