* Vivek Goyal (vgo...@redhat.com) wrote: > Currently we created a thread pool (With 64 max threads per pool) for > each virtqueue. We hoped that this will provide us with better scalability > and performance. > > But in practice, we are getting better numbers in most of the cases > when we don't create a thread pool at all and a single thread per > virtqueue receives the request and processes it. > > Hence, I am proposing that we switch to no thread pool by default > (equivalent of --thread-pool-size=0). This will provide out of > box better performance to most of the users. In fact other users > have confirmed that not using a thread pool gives them better > numbers. So why not use this as default. It can be changed when > somebody can fix the issues with thread pool performance. > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com>
OK, lets try it - I still worry it really means we're missing something silly about them, you'd really think eventually the threads should help. Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > --- > tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c > index e94b71110b..fbdf62ee9b 100644 > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > > #include <sys/file.h> > > -#define THREAD_POOL_SIZE 64 > +#define THREAD_POOL_SIZE 0 > > #define OFFSET_MAX 0x7fffffffffffffffLL > > -- > 2.25.4 -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
