netdev - Re: [PATCH] vhost: Make it more scalable by creating a vhost thread per device.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20100411154719.GA9681@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:47:20 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Tom Lendacky <toml@...ibm.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: Make it more scalable by creating a vhost
	thread per device.

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 05:05:42PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 10:35 -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 14:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:31:20AM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > > > Make vhost scalable by creating a separate vhost thread per vhost
> > > > device. This provides better scaling across multiple guests and with
> > > > multiple interfaces in a guest.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for looking into this. An alternative approach is
> > > to simply replace create_singlethread_workqueue with
> > > create_workqueue which would get us a thread per host CPU.
> > > 
> > > It seems that in theory this should be the optimal approach
> > > wrt CPU locality, however, in practice a single thread
> > > seems to get better numbers. I have a TODO to investigate this.
> > > Could you try looking into this?
> > 
> > Yes. I tried using create_workqueue(), but the results were not good
> > atleast when the number of guest interfaces is less than the number
> > of CPUs. I didn't try more than 8 guests.
> > Creating a separate thread per guest interface seems to be more
> > scalable based on the testing i have done so far.
> > 
> > I will try some more tests and get some numbers to compare the following
> > 3 options.
> > - single vhost thread
> > - vhost thread per cpu
> > - vhost thread per guest virtio interface
> 
> Here are the results with netperf TCP_STREAM 64K guest to host on a
> 8-cpu Nehalem system. It shows cumulative bandwidth in Mbps and host 
> CPU utilization.
> 
> Current default single vhost thread
> -----------------------------------
> 1 guest:  12500  37%    
> 2 guests: 12800  46%
> 3 guests: 12600  47%
> 4 guests: 12200  47%
> 5 guests: 12000  47%
> 6 guests: 11700  47%
> 7 guests: 11340  47%
> 8 guests: 11200  48%
> 
> vhost thread per cpu
> --------------------
> 1 guest:   4900 25%
> 2 guests: 10800 49%
> 3 guests: 17100 67%
> 4 guests: 20400 84%
> 5 guests: 21000 90%
> 6 guests: 22500 92%
> 7 guests: 23500 96%
> 8 guests: 24500 99%
> 
> vhost thread per guest interface
> --------------------------------
> 1 guest:  12500 37%
> 2 guests: 21000 72%
> 3 guests: 21600 79%
> 4 guests: 21600 85%
> 5 guests: 22500 89%
> 6 guests: 22800 94%
> 7 guests: 24500 98%
> 8 guests: 26400 99%
> 
> Thanks
> Sridhar


Consider using Ingo's perf tool to get error bars, but looks good
overall. One thing I note though is that we seem to be able to
consume up to 99% CPU now. So I think with this approach
we can no longer claim that we are just like some other parts of
networking stack, doing work outside any cgroup, and we should
make the vhost thread inherit the cgroup and cpu mask
from the process calling SET_OWNER.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html