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

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

Message-ID: <20100412162759.GA18272@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:27:59 +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%

We can also have a thread per vq. Does it help?

> Thanks
> Sridhar
> 
--
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