From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532B0C4363D for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 08:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB0832085B for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 08:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crudebyte.com header.i=@crudebyte.com header.b="cNrpcyH0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AB0832085B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=crudebyte.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:38018 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kLilm-0000Mw-LU for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:07:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41532) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kLikl-00081D-1X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:06:51 -0400 Received: from lizzy.crudebyte.com ([91.194.90.13]:53047) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kLiki-00086w-Gz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:06:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crudebyte.com; s=lizzy; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=C1LAl7iFhSWxJo4O4+Fg+1J6QMFGsW7M6C6eJvk9vCY=; b=cNrpcyH0NFjMrz4CcpXPepwflE cABEw0CuVkczdQ4KKAiLuLaApRjK6H2iXpZDV57nFWniDUr2a2ltzigIX6S3E+7c4K5WtKJrAgO8z qDj2OelLbyk21s0r20IvfMrukx1q1ep6LtU0mKlcd1pUqK2Cj8He66+yNzYFe7ZLpUI1s6c4Zzv5X IxFH5mkv0k79MmH3PfJO67eZHFa2iiZyDQcE/M+qi3OitCYV61LvYPLolhFqF5yeoSm/ofhMNyt8j VeFN1sVB1SvCoU+nXNMAcxaETUeb6z2qfRRmJu6v6Iw3B9nwht/pIbUV8OPFyeidAdyx8AqEqRxdw aQtPraeA==; From: Christian Schoenebeck To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Vivek Goyal , "Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos" , "cdupontd@redhat.com" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , virtio-fs-list , Stefan Hajnoczi , "Shinde, Archana M" , Greg Kurz Subject: Re: virtiofs vs 9p performance Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:06:41 +0200 Message-ID: <17216624.eqST2d0sUl@silver> In-Reply-To: <20200924221023.GB132653@redhat.com> References: <20200918213436.GA3520@redhat.com> <46D726A6-72F3-40FE-9382-A189513F783D@intel.com> <20200924221023.GB132653@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=91.194.90.13; envelope-from=qemu_oss@crudebyte.com; helo=lizzy.crudebyte.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/25 04:06:45 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Freitag, 25. September 2020 00:10:23 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote: > In my testing, with cache=none, virtiofs performed better than 9p in > all the fio jobs I was running. For the case of cache=auto for virtiofs > (with xattr enabled), 9p performed better in certain write workloads. I > have identified root cause of that problem and working on > HANDLE_KILLPRIV_V2 patches to improve WRITE performance of virtiofs > with cache=auto and xattr enabled. Please note, when it comes to performance aspects, you should set a reasonable high value for 'msize' on 9p client side: https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9psetup#msize I'm also working on performance optimizations for 9p BTW. There is plenty of headroom to put it mildly. For QEMU 5.2 I started by addressing readdir requests: https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/5.2#9pfs Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck