[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201603310617.u2V6HIkt008006@d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:17:13 +0200
From: "Michael Rapoport" <RAPOPORT@...ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues
Hello,
> Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote on 03/30/2016 08:04:19 PM:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote:
> > I did some performance evaluation of different threading models in
vhost,
> > and in most tests replacing vhost kthread's with workqueues degrades
the
> > performance. Moreover, having thread management inside the vhost
provides
>
> There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound
> workqueues. workqueue becomes a convenience thing which manages
> worker pools and there shouldn't be any difference between workqueue
> workers and kthreads in terms of behavior.
I agree that there really shouldn't be any performance difference, but the
tests I've run show otherwise. I have no idea why and I hadn't time yet to
investigate it.
> > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads...
>
> What sort of optimizations are we talking about?
Well, if we take Evlis (1) as for the theoretical base, there could be
benefit of doing I/O scheduling inside the vhost.
[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc13/atc13-harel.pdf
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists