linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:21:54 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, jasowang@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 03:49:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/09/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> > This patch adds queue steering to virtio-scsi.  When a target is sent
> >> > multiple requests, we always drive them to the same queue so that FIFO
> >> > processing order is kept.  However, if a target was idle, we can choose
> >> > a queue arbitrarily.  In this case the queue is chosen according to the
> >> > current VCPU, so the driver expects the number of request queues to be
> >> > equal to the number of VCPUs.  This makes it easy and fast to select
> >> > the queue, and also lets the driver optimize the IRQ affinity for the
> >> > virtqueues (each virtqueue's affinity is set to the CPU that "owns"
> >> > the queue).
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > I guess an alternative is a per-target vq.
> > Is the reason you avoid this that you expect more targets
> > than cpus? If yes this is something you might want to
> > mention in the log.
> 
> One reason is that, even though in practice I expect roughly the same
> number of targets and VCPUs, hotplug means the number of targets is
> difficult to predict and is usually fixed to 256.
> 
> The other reason is that per-target vq didn't give any performance
> advantage.  The bonus comes from cache locality and less process
> migrations, more than from the independent virtqueues.
> 
> Paolo

Okay, and why is per-target worse for cache locality?

-- 
MST
--
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/