Date:	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:04 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-ring: Use threshold for switching to indirect
 descriptors

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 15:54 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:34:48PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:33:16AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > Currently if VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC is enabled we will use indirect
> > > > descriptors even if we have plenty of space in the ring. This means that
> > > > we take a performance hit at all times due to the overhead of creating
> > > > indirect descriptors.
> > > 
> > > Is it the overhead of creating them or just allocating the pages?
> > 
> > My guess here is that it's the allocation since creating them is very
> > similar to creating regular descriptors.
> 
> Well, there is some formatting overhead ...

Very little. The formatting code is very similar to regular buffers.

> 
> > > The logic you propose is basically add direct as long as
> > > the ring is mostly empty. So if the problem is in allocations,
> > > one simple optimization for this one workload is add a small
> > > cache of memory to use for indirect bufs. Of course building
> > > a good API for this is where we got blocked in the past...
> > 
> > I thought the issue of using a single pool was that the sizes of
> > indirect descriptors are dynamic, so you can't use a single kmemcache
> > for all of them unless you're ok with having a bunch of wasted bytes.
> 
> If the pool size is limited, the waste is limited too, so maybe
> we are OK with that...

What would you say are the best numbers for indirect descriptor sizes
and the amount of those in a kmemcache?

> > > 
> > > > With this patch, we will use indirect descriptors only if we have less than
> > > > either 16, or 12% of the total amount of descriptors available.
> > > 
> > > One notes that this to some level conflicts with patches that change
> > > virtio net not to drain the vq before add buf, in that we are
> > > required here to drain the vq to avoid indirect.
> > 
> > You don't have to avoid indirects by all means, if the vq is so full it
> > has to resort to indirect buffers we better let him do that.
> 
> With the limited polling patches, the vq stays full all of
> the time, we only poll enough to create space for the new
> descriptor.
> It's not a must to make them work as they are not upstream,
> but worth considering.
> 
> > > 
> > > Not necessarily a serious problem, but something to keep in mind:
> > > a memory pool would not have this issue.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I did basic performance benchmark on virtio-net with vhost enabled.
> > > > 
> > > > Before:
> > > > 	Recv   Send    Send
> > > > 	Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> > > > 	Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
> > > > 	bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> > > > 
> > > > 	 87380  16384  16384    10.00    4563.92
> > > > 
> > > > After:
> > > > 	Recv   Send    Send
> > > > 	Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> > > > 	Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
> > > > 	bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> > > > 
> > > > 	 87380  16384  16384    10.00    5353.28
> > > 
> > > Is this with the kvm tool? what kind of benchmark is this?
> > 
> > It's using the kvm tool and netperf. It's a simple TCP_STREAM test with
> > vhost enabled and using a regular TAP device to connect between guest
> > and host.
> 
> guest to host?

guest is running as server.

> 
> > > 
> > > Need to verify the effect on block too, and do some more
> > > benchmarks. In particular we are making the ring
> > > in effect smaller, how will this affect small packet perf
> > > with multiple streams?
> > 
> > I couldn't get good block benchmarks on my hardware. They were all over
> > the place even when I was trying to get the baseline. I'm guessing my
> > disk is about to kick the bucket.
> 
> Try using memory as a backing store.

Here are the results from fio doing random reads:

With indirect buffers:
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   READ: io=2419.7MB, aggrb=126001KB/s, minb=12887KB/s, maxb=13684KB/s, mint=18461msec, maxt=19664msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=612107/0, merge=0/0, ticks=37559/0, in_queue=32723, util=76.70%

Indirect buffers disabled in the host:
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   READ: io=2419.7MB, aggrb=127106KB/s, minb=12811KB/s, maxb=14557KB/s, mint=17486msec, maxt=19493msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=617315/0, merge=1/0, ticks=166751/0, in_queue=162807, util=88.19%

Which is actually strange, weren't indirect buffers introduced to make
the performance *better*? From what I see it's pretty much the
same/worse for virtio-blk.

Here's my fio test file:
[random-read]
rw=randread
size=256m
filename=/dev/vda
ioengine=libaio
iodepth=8
direct=1
invalidate=1
numjobs=10

> 
> > This threshold should be dynamic and be based on the amount of avail
> > descriptors over time, so for example, if the vring is 90% full over
> > time the threshold will go up allowing for more indirect buffers.
> > Currently it's static, but it's a first step to making it dynamic :)
> > 
> > I'll do a benchmark with small packets.
> > 
> > > A very simple test is to disable indirect buffers altogether.
> > > qemu-kvm has a flag for this.
> > > Is this an equivalent test?
> > > If yes I'll try that.
> > 
> > Yes, it should be equivalent to qemu without that flag.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> > > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
> > > > Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> > > > Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c |   12 ++++++++++--
> > > >  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > index c7a2c20..5e0ce15 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct vring_virtqueue
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Host supports indirect buffers */
> > > >  	bool indirect;
> > > 
> > > We can get rid of bool indirect now, just set indirect_threshold to 0,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Yup.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +	unsigned int indirect_threshold;
> > > 
> > > Please add a comment. It should be something like
> > > 'Min. number of free space in the ring to trigger direct descriptor use'
> > 
> > Will do.
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Host publishes avail event idx */
> > > >  	bool event;
> > > > @@ -176,8 +177,9 @@ int virtqueue_add_buf_gfp(struct virtqueue *_vq,
> > > >  	BUG_ON(data == NULL);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* If the host supports indirect descriptor tables, and we have multiple
> > > > -	 * buffers, then go indirect. FIXME: tune this threshold */
> > > > -	if (vq->indirect && (out + in) > 1 && vq->num_free) {
> > > > +	 * buffers, then go indirect. */
> > > > +	if (vq->indirect && (out + in) > 1 &&
> > > > +	   (vq->num_free < vq->indirect_threshold)) {
> > > 
> > > If num_free is 0, this will allocate the buffer which is
> > > not a good idea.
> > > 
> > > I think there's a regression here: with a small vq, we could
> > > previously put in an indirect descriptor, with your patch
> > > add_buf will fail. I think this is a real problem for block
> > > which was the original reason indirect bufs were introduced.
> > 
> > I defined the threshold so at least 16 descriptors will be used as
> > indirect buffers, so if you have a small vq theres still a solid minimum
> > of indirect descriptors it could use.
> 
> Yes but request size might be > 16.
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >  		head = vring_add_indirect(vq, sg, out, in, gfp);
> > > >  		if (likely(head >= 0))
> > > >  			goto add_head;
> > > > @@ -485,6 +487,12 @@ struct virtqueue *vring_new_virtqueue(unsigned int num,
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  
> > > >  	vq->indirect = virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC);
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Use indirect descriptors only when we have less than either 12%
> > > > +	 * or 16 of the descriptors in the ring available.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (vq->indirect)
> > > > +		vq->indirect_threshold = max(16U, num >> 3);
> > > 
> > > Let's add some defines at top of the file please, maybe even
> > > a module parameter.
> > > 
> > > >  	vq->event = virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_RING_F_EVENT_IDX);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* No callback?  Tell other side not to bother us. */
> > > > -- 
> > > > 1.7.8.rc3
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > Sasha.

-- 

Sasha.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists