On 06/01/2012 05:13 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Holding the vblk->lock across kick causes poor scalability in SMP
guests. If one CPU is doing virtqueue kick and another CPU touches the
vblk->lock it will have to spin until virtqueue kick completes.
This patch reduces system% CPU utilization in SMP guests that are
running multithreaded I/O-bound workloads. The improvements are small
but show as iops and SMP are increased.
Khoa Huynh<k...@us.ibm.com> provided initial performance data that
indicates this optimization is worthwhile at high iops.
Asias He<as...@redhat.com> reports the following fio results:
Host: Linux 3.4.0+ #302 SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux
Guest: same as host kernel
Average 3 runs:
with locked kick
read iops=119907.50 bw=59954.00 runt=35018.50 io=2048.00
write iops=217187.00 bw=108594.00 runt=19312.00 io=2048.00
read iops=33948.00 bw=16974.50 runt=186820.50 io=3095.70
write iops=35014.00 bw=17507.50 runt=181151.00 io=3095.70
clat (usec) max=3484.10 avg=121085.38 stdev=174416.11 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=3438.30 avg=59863.35 stdev=116607.69 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=3745.65 avg=454501.30 stdev=332699.00 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=4089.75 avg=442374.99 stdev=304874.62 min=0.00
cpu sys=615.12 majf=24080.50 ctx=64253616.50 usr=68.08 minf=17907363.00
cpu sys=1235.95 majf=23389.00 ctx=59788148.00 usr=98.34 minf=20020008.50
cpu sys=764.96 majf=28414.00 ctx=848279274.00 usr=36.39 minf=19737254.00
cpu sys=714.13 majf=21853.50 ctx=854608972.00 usr=33.56 minf=18256760.50
with unlocked kick
read iops=118559.00 bw=59279.66 runt=35400.66 io=2048.00
write iops=227560.00 bw=113780.33 runt=18440.00 io=2048.00
read iops=34567.66 bw=17284.00 runt=183497.33 io=3095.70
write iops=34589.33 bw=17295.00 runt=183355.00 io=3095.70
clat (usec) max=3485.56 avg=121989.58 stdev=197355.15 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=3222.33 avg=57784.11 stdev=141002.89 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=4060.93 avg=447098.65 stdev=315734.33 min=0.00
clat (usec) max=3656.30 avg=447281.70 stdev=314051.33 min=0.00
cpu sys=683.78 majf=24501.33 ctx=64435364.66 usr=68.91 minf=17907893.33
cpu sys=1218.24 majf=25000.33 ctx=60451475.00 usr=101.04 minf=19757720.00
cpu sys=740.39 majf=24809.00 ctx=845290443.66 usr=37.25 minf=19349958.33
cpu sys=723.63 majf=27597.33 ctx=850199927.33 usr=35.35 minf=19092343.00
FIO config file:
[global]
exec_prerun="echo 3> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
group_reporting
norandommap
ioscheduler=noop
thread
bs=512
size=4MB
direct=1
filename=/dev/vdb
numjobs=256
ioengine=aio
iodepth=64
loops=3
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Other block drivers (cciss, rbd, nbd) use spin_unlock_irq() so I followed that.
To me this seems wrong: blk_run_queue() uses spin_lock_irqsave() but we enable
irqs with spin_unlock_irq(). If the caller of blk_run_queue() had irqs
disabled and we enable them again this could be a problem, right? Can someone
more familiar with kernel locking comment?
blk_run_queue() is not used in our code path. We use __blk_run_queue().
The code path is:
generic_make_request() -> q->make_request_fn() -> blk_queue_bio()
->__blk_run_queue() -> q->request_fn() -> do_virtblk_request().
__blk_run_queue() is called with interrupts disabled and queue lock
locked. In blk_queue_bio, __blk_run_queue() is protected by
spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock).
The lock in block layer seems a bit confusing, e.g.block/blk-core.c.
There are fixed use of spin_lock_irq() and spin_lock_irqsave() pair.
drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
index 774c31d..d674977 100644
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
@@ -199,8 +199,14 @@ static void do_virtblk_request(struct request_queue *q)
issued++;
}
- if (issued)
- virtqueue_kick(vblk->vq);
+ if (!issued)
+ return;
+
+ if (virtqueue_kick_prepare(vblk->vq)) {
+ spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ virtqueue_notify(vblk->vq);
+ spin_lock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ }
}
/* return id (s/n) string for *disk to *id_str
--
Asias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
