netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eyal Moscovici <EYALMO@il.ibm.com>,
	Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@il.ibm.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, jasowang@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Shared vhost design
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:02:14 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150727235818-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1436760455-5686-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:07:31AM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> There have been discussions on improving the current vhost design. The first
> attempt, to my knowledge was Shirley Ma's patch to create a dedicated vhost
> worker per cgroup.
> 
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/224730
> 
> Later, I posted a cmwq based approach for performance comparisions
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/286858
> 
> More recently was the Elvis work that was presented in KVM Forum 2013
> http://www.linux-kvm.org/images/a/a3/Kvm-forum-2013-elvis.pdf
> 
> The Elvis patches rely on common vhost thread design for scalability
> along with polling for performance. Since there are two major changes
> being proposed, we decided to split up the work. The first (this RFC),
> proposing a re-design of the vhost threading model and the second part
> (not posted yet) to focus more on improving performance. 
> 
> I am posting this with the hope that we can have a meaningful discussion
> on the proposed new architecture. We have run some tests to show that the new
> design is scalable and in terms of performance, is comparable to the current
> stable design. 
> 
> Test Setup:
> The testing is based on the setup described in the Elvis proposal.
> The initial tests are just an aggregate of Netperf STREAM and MAERTS but
> as we progress, I am happy to run more tests. The hosts are two identical
> 16 core Haswell systems with point to point network links. For the first 10 runs,
> with n=1 upto n=10 guests running in parallel, I booted the target system with nr_cpus=8
> and mem=12G. The purpose was to do a comparision of resource utilization
> and how it affects performance. Finally, with the number of guests set at 14,
> I didn't limit the number of CPUs booted on the host or limit memory seen by
> the kernel but boot the kernel with isolcpus=14,15 that will be used to run
> the vhost threads. The guests are pinned to cpus 0-13 and based on which
> cpu the guest is running on, the corresponding I/O thread is either pinned
> to cpu 14 or 15.
> Results
> # X axis is number of guests
> # Y axis is netperf number
> # nr_cpus=8 and mem=12G
> #Number of Guests        #Baseline            #ELVIS
> 1                        1119.3		      1111.0
> 2			 1135.6		      1130.2
> 3			 1135.5		      1131.6
> 4			 1136.0		      1127.1
> 5			 1118.6		      1129.3
> 6			 1123.4		      1129.8
> 7			 1128.7		      1135.4
> 8			 1129.9		      1137.5
> 9			 1130.6		      1135.1
> 10			 1129.3		      1138.9
> 14*			 1173.8		      1216.9

I'm a bit too busy now, with 2.4 and related stuff, will review once we
finish 2.4.  But I'd like to ask two things:
- did you actually test a config where cgroups were used?
- does the design address the issue of VM 1 being blocked
  (e.g. because it hits swap) and blocking VM 2?

> 
> #* Last run with the vCPU and I/O thread(s) pinned, no CPU/memory limit imposed.
> #  I/O thread runs on CPU 14 or 15 depending on which guest it's serving
> 
> There's a simple graph at
> http://people.redhat.com/~bdas/elvis/data/results.png
> that shows how task affinity results in a jump and even without it,
> as the number of guests increase, the shared vhost design performs
> slightly better.
> 
> Observations:
> 1. In terms of "stock" performance, the results are comparable.
> 2. However, with a tuned setup, even without polling, we see an improvement
> with the new design.
> 3. Making the new design simulate old behavior would be a matter of setting
> the number of guests per vhost threads to 1.
> 4. Maybe, setting a per guest limit on the work being done by a specific vhost
> thread is needed for it to be fair.
> 5. cgroup associations needs to be figured out. I just slightly hacked the
> current cgroup association mechanism to work with the new model. Ccing cgroups
> for input/comments.
> 
> Many thanks to Razya Ladelsky and Eyal Moscovici, IBM for the initial
> patches, the helpful testing suggestions and discussions.
> 
> Bandan Das (4):
>   vhost: Introduce a universal thread to serve all users
>   vhost: Limit the number of devices served by a single worker thread
>   cgroup: Introduce a function to compare cgroups
>   vhost: Add cgroup-aware creation of worker threads
> 
>  drivers/vhost/net.c    |   6 +-
>  drivers/vhost/scsi.c   |  18 ++--
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.c  | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.h  |  32 +++++-
>  include/linux/cgroup.h |   1 +
>  kernel/cgroup.c        |  40 ++++++++
>  6 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.4.3

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-07-27 21:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-13  4:07 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Shared vhost design Bandan Das
2015-07-13  4:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] vhost: Introduce a universal thread to serve all users Bandan Das
     [not found]   ` <OF8AF3E3F8.F0120188-ONC2257E8E.00740E46-C2257E90.0035BD30@il.ibm.com>
2015-08-08 22:40     ` Bandan Das
2015-08-10  9:27   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-08-10 20:09     ` Bandan Das
     [not found]       ` <jpg1tfarjly.fsf-oDDOE2N8RG3XLSnhx7PemevR1TjyzBtM@public.gmane.org>
2015-08-10 21:05         ` Bandan Das
2015-07-13  4:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] vhost: Limit the number of devices served by a single worker thread Bandan Das
2015-07-13  4:07 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] cgroup: Introduce a function to compare cgroups Bandan Das
2015-07-13  4:07 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] vhost: Add cgroup-aware creation of worker threads Bandan Das
2015-07-27 21:12   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
     [not found] ` <OF451FED84.3040AFD2-ONC2257E8C.0043F908-C2257E8C.00446592@il.ibm.com>
2015-07-27 19:48   ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Shared vhost design Bandan Das
2015-07-27 21:07     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
     [not found]       ` <OFFB2CB583.341B00EF-ONC2257E94.002FF06E-C2257E94.0032BC0A@il.ibm.com>
     [not found]         ` <OFFB2CB583.341B00EF-ONC2257E94.002FF06E-C2257E94.0032BC0A-7z/5BgaJwgfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-08-01 18:48           ` Bandan Das
2015-07-27 21:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
     [not found]   ` <20150727235818-mutt-send-email-mst-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-08-08 23:06     ` Bandan Das
     [not found]       ` <jpgoaihs7lt.fsf-oDDOE2N8RG3XLSnhx7PemevR1TjyzBtM@public.gmane.org>
2015-08-09 12:45         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
     [not found]           ` <OFC68F4730.CA40D595-ONC2257E9C.00515E83-C2257E9C.00523437@il.ibm.com>
2015-08-09 15:40             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-08-10 20:00           ` Bandan Das

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=20150727235818-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=EYALMO@il.ibm.com \
    --cc=RAZYA@il.ibm.com \
    --cc=bsd@redhat.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).