[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio-blk-ccw: tweak the default for num_queues

From: Halil Pasic
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio-blk-ccw: tweak the default for num_queues
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:40:15 +0100

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:47:51 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 09.11.20 19:53, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:06:16 +0100
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>> @@ -20,6 +21,11 @@ static void virtio_ccw_blk_realize(VirtioCcwDevice 
> >>> *ccw_dev, Error **errp)
> >>>  {
> >>>      VirtIOBlkCcw *dev = VIRTIO_BLK_CCW(ccw_dev);
> >>>      DeviceState *vdev = DEVICE(&dev->vdev);
> >>> +    VirtIOBlkConf *conf = &dev->vdev.conf;
> >>> +
> >>> +    if (conf->num_queues == VIRTIO_BLK_AUTO_NUM_QUEUES) {
> >>> +        conf->num_queues = MIN(4, current_machine->smp.cpus);
> >>> +    }  
> >>
> >> I would like to have a comment explaining the numbers here, however.
> >>
> >> virtio-pci has a pretty good explanation (use 1:1 for vqs:vcpus if
> >> possible, apply some other capping). 4 seems to be a bit arbitrary
> >> without explanation, although I'm sure you did some measurements :)
> > 
> > Frankly, I don't have any measurements yet. For the secure case,
> > I think Mimu has assessed the impact of multiqueue, hence adding Mimu to
> > the cc list. @Mimu can you help us out.
> > 
> > Regarding the normal non-protected VMs I'm in a middle of producing some
> > measurement data. This was admittedly a bit rushed because of where we
> > are in the cycle. Sorry to disappoint you.
> > 
> > The number 4 was suggested by Christian, maybe Christian does have some
> > readily available measurement data for the normal VM case. @Christian:
> > can you help me out?
> My point was to find a balance between performance gain and memory usage.
> As a matter of fact, virtqueue do consume memory. So 4 looked like a
> reasonable default for me for large guests as long as we do not have directed
> interrupts.
> Now, thinking about this again: If we want to change the default to something
> else in the future (e.g. to num vcpus) then the compat handling will get
> really complicated.

Regarding compat handling, I believe we would need a new property for
virtio-blk-ccw: something like def_num_queues_max. Then logic would
morph to MIN(def_num_queues_max, current_machine->smp.cpus), and we could
relatively freely do compat stuff on def_num_queues_max.

IMHO not pretty but certainly doable.

> So we can
> - go with num queues = num cpus. But this will consume memory
> for guests with lots of CPUs.

In absence of data that showcases the benefit outweighing the obvious
detriment, I lean towards finding this option the least favorable.

> - go with the proposed logic of min(4,vcpus) and accept that future compat 
> handling
> is harder

IMHO not a bad option, but I think I would still feel better about a
more informed decision. In the end, the end user can already specify the
num_queues explicitly, so I don't think this is urgent.

> - defer this change

So I tend to lean towards deferring.

Another thought is, provided the load is about evenly spread on the
different virtqueues, if the game is about vCPU locality, one could
think of decreasing the size of each individual virtqueue while
increasing their number, with the idea of not paying much more in terms
of memory. The queue size however needs to be a power of 2,
so there is a limit on the granularity.

Regarding secure VMs, currently we have to cramp at least the swiotlb and
the virtqueues into ZONE_DMA. So increasing the number of
virtqueues heavily may get us into new trouble with exotic configs.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]