Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] virtio-scsi: default num_queues to -smp N

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:20:41PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 12:39:49PM +0100, Sergio Lopez wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:57:44AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Sergio Lopez wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:52:35AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 01:29:16AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > On 29/01/20 16:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 02:10:31PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:01:57 +0000
> > > > > > >> Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > So I think we need to, at the very least, make a clear statement here
> > > about what tuning approach should be applied vCPU count gets high,
> > > and probably even apply that  as a default out of the box approach.
> > 
> > In general, I would agree, but in this particular case the
> > optimization has an impact on something outside's QEMU control (host's
> > resources), so we lack the information needed to make a proper guess.
> > 
> > My main concern here is users upgrading QEMU to hit some kind of crash
> > or performance issue, without having touched their VM config. And
> 
> I don't think this is an issue since only newly created guests are
> affected.  Existing machine types are unchanged.
> 
> > let's not forget that Stefan said in the cover that this amounts to a
> > 1-4% improvement on 4k operations on an SSD, and I guess that's with
> > iodepth=1. I suspect with a larger block size and/or higher iodepth
> > the improvement will be barely noticeable, which means it'll only have
> > a positive impact on users running DB/OLTP or similar workloads on
> > dedicated, directly attached, low-latency storage.
> > 
> > But don't get me wrong, this is a *good* optimization. It's just I
> > think we should play safe here.
> 
> The NVMe card I've been testing has 64 queues.  Let's keep the virtio
> limit roughly the same as real hardware.  That way, multi-queue block
> layer support in QEMU will be able to fully exploit the hardware
> (similar to how we size request queues to be larger than the common 64
> /sys/block/FOO/queue/nr_requests).
> 
> The point of this change is to improve performance on SMP guests.
> Setting the limit to 4-8 is too low, since it leaves guests that most
> need this optimization with a sub-optimal configuration.
> 
> I will create a 32 vCPU guest with 100 virtio-blk devices and verify
> that enabling multi-queue is successful.
> 
> Stefan


and that it's helpful for performance?