linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] percpu_tags: Prototype implementation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:57:45 -0700
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...erainc.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] percpu_tags: Prototype implementation

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 13:52 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> (Responding again without gmail, as the last email hit a failure when
> responding to the lists..)
> 
> On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 16:17 -0400, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:20:56PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > The performance test is not decent, though. I used "fio" random
> > > read against a "null_blk" device sitting on top of "percpu_tags",
> > > which is not exactly how "percpu_ida" is used. This is another
> > > reason I am posting - an advice on how to properly test is very
> > > appreciated.
> > 
> > Hi Nicholas et al,
> > 
> > I expect the best possible performance test for percpu_ida/percpu_tags
> > would be to stress drivers/vhost/scsi.c vhost_scsi_get_tag() function.
> > 
> > I tried to make such test by attaching ramdisk to a virtual machine
> > (similar to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/10/347) but ultimately failed
> > to configure the necessary environment - the stock qemu does not have
> > -vhost-scsi parameter.
> > 
> > Could you please advice how to make this configuration exposed to guests?
> > 
> > o- / ..................................................................... [...]
> >   o- backstores .......................................................... [...]
> >   | o- block .............................................. [Storage Objects: 0]
> >   | o- fileio ............................................. [Storage Objects: 0]
> >   | o- pscsi .............................................. [Storage Objects: 0]
> >   | o- ramdisk ............................................ [Storage Objects: 1]
> >   |   o- rda .............................................. [(1.0GiB) activated]
> >   o- iscsi ........................................................ [Targets: 0]
> >   o- loopback ..................................................... [Targets: 0]
> >   o- vhost ........................................................ [Targets: 1]
> >     o- naa.5001405b171ee405 .......................................... [TPGs: 1]
> >       o- tpg1 .............................. [naa.5001405983a5b1a4, no-gen-acls]
> >         o- acls ...................................................... [ACLs: 0]
> >         o- luns ...................................................... [LUNs: 1]
> >           o- lun0 ................................................ [ramdisk/rda]
> > 
> 
> So qemu expects '-device vhost-scsi-pci' with the following syntax:
> 
>    -device vhost-scsi-pci,wwpn=naa.5001405b171ee405,num_queues=1,cmd_per_lun=64
> 
> For best results I'd recommend setting the IRQ affinity for each of the
> virtio*_request MSI-X vectors to a dedicated vCPU in KVM guest.
> 
> Also, I've been using the scsi-mq prototype for small block I/O
> performance testing in order to push vhost-scsi and avoid the legacy
> scsi_request_fn() bottleneck(s) with virtio-scsi, and now that hch's
> scsi-mq work (CC'ed) has been merged upstream in v3.17-rc0, it would be
> a good time for a scsi-mq + virtio-scsi + vhost-scsi performance
> checkpoint.  ;)
> 

Oh yeah, for performance testing you'll want to use the rd_nullio=1 flag
when creating RAMDISK backends, to avoid the normal fast-path memcpys
between ramdisk + per I/O descriptor memory.

--nab

--
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/