linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] vhost: add vhost

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:   Mon, 05 Nov 2018 13:55:24 +0200
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
Cc:     "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] vhost: add vhost_blk driver

On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 11:40 -0500, Vitaly Mayatskih wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:57 AM Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > I am also working in this area, and so I am very intersted in this driver.
> > 
> > > 1  171k  151k  148k 151k 195k  187k  175k
> > 
> > If I understand correctly this is fio --numjobs=1?
> > It looks like you are getting better that native performance over bare metal
> > in
> > E,F,G (vhost-blk cases in fact). Is this correct?
> 
> Yes. At such speeds it is a matter of how the workers are scheduled,
> i.e. how good is batching. There are other factors why vhost-blk is on
> par or slightly higher than fio running in userspace on bare metal,
> but from my observation the right batching all through the stack is
> more important.

I completely agree with you on that.
I currently learning profiling/tracing to understand the batching (or lack of)
in the tests I run

My focus currently is mostly on spdk + native nvme
While for multiple threads, the performance is very close to bare metal, on
single thread I see significant overhead which probably relate to batching as
well.

> 
> > Could you share the full fio command line you have used?
> 
> sysctl -w vm.nr_hugepages=8300; numactl -p 1 -N 1 ./qemu-system-x86_64
> -enable-kvm -cpu host -smp 16 -mem-prealloc -mem-path
> /dev/hugepages/foo -m 8G -nographic -drive
> if=none,id=drive0,format=raw,file=/dev/mapper/mirror-hello,cache=none
> -device virtio-blk-pci,id=blk0,drive=drive0,num-queues=16 -drive
> if=none,id=drive1,format=raw,file=/dev/mapper/mirror-volume,cache=none
> -device vhost-blk-pci,id=blk1,drive=drive1,num-queues=16
Thanks!

> 
> for i in `seq 1 16`; do echo -n "$i "; ./fio --direct=1 --rw=randread
> --ioengine=libaio --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --numjobs=$i --name=foo
> --time_based --runtime=15 --group_reporting --filename=/dev/vda
> --size=10g | grep -Po 'IOPS=[0-9\.]*k'; done
> 
> > Which IO device did you use for the test? NVME?
> 
> That was LVM mirror over 2 network disks. On the target side it was
> LVM stripe over few NVMe's.
Have you tried to test this over directly connected NVME device to?
The networking might naturally improve batching I think.

> 
> > Which system (cpu model/number of cores/etc) did you test on?
> 
> Dual socket: "model name    : Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @
> 2.60GHz" with HT enabled, so 64 logical cores in total. The network
> was something from Intel with 53 Gbps PHY and served by fm10k driver.


All right, thanks!
I'll test your driver on my system where I tested most of the current solutions.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky