lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 0/5] Multi-queue support for xen-blkfront and xen-blkback
On 08/11/2015 03:45 AM, Rafal Mielniczuk wrote:
> On 11/08/15 07:08, Bob Liu wrote:
>> On 08/10/2015 11:52 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2015 05:03 AM, Rafal Mielniczuk wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/15 04:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 06/30/2015 08:21 AM, Marcus Granado wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our measurements for the multiqueue patch indicate a clear improvement
>>>>>> in iops when more queues are used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The measurements were obtained under the following conditions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - using blkback as the dom0 backend with the multiqueue patch applied to
>>>>>> a dom0 kernel 4.0 on 8 vcpus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - using a recent Ubuntu 15.04 kernel 3.19 with multiqueue frontend
>>>>>> applied to be used as a guest on 4 vcpus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - using a micron RealSSD P320h as the underlying local storage on a Dell
>>>>>> PowerEdge R720 with 2 Xeon E5-2643 v2 cpus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - fio 2.2.7-22-g36870 as the generator of synthetic loads in the guest.
>>>>>> We used direct_io to skip caching in the guest and ran fio for 60s
>>>>>> reading a number of block sizes ranging from 512 bytes to 4MiB. Queue
>>>>>> depth of 32 for each queue was used to saturate individual vcpus in the
>>>>>> guest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We were interested in observing storage iops for different values of
>>>>>> block sizes. Our expectation was that iops would improve when increasing
>>>>>> the number of queues, because both the guest and dom0 would be able to
>>>>>> make use of more vcpus to handle these requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are the results (as aggregate iops for all the fio threads) that
>>>>>> we got for the conditions above with sequential reads:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fio_threads io_depth block_size 1-queue_iops 8-queue_iops
>>>>>> 8 32 512 158K 264K
>>>>>> 8 32 1K 157K 260K
>>>>>> 8 32 2K 157K 258K
>>>>>> 8 32 4K 148K 257K
>>>>>> 8 32 8K 124K 207K
>>>>>> 8 32 16K 84K 105K
>>>>>> 8 32 32K 50K 54K
>>>>>> 8 32 64K 24K 27K
>>>>>> 8 32 128K 11K 13K
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8-queue iops was better than single queue iops for all the block sizes.
>>>>>> There were very good improvements as well for sequential writes with
>>>>>> block size 4K (from 80K iops with single queue to 230K iops with 8
>>>>>> queues), and no regressions were visible in any measurement performed.
>>>>> Great results! And I don't know why this code has lingered for so long,
>>>>> so thanks for helping get some attention to this again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I'd be really interested in the results for the same set of
>>>>> tests, but without the blk-mq patches. Do you have them, or could you
>>>>> potentially run them?
>>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> We rerun the tests for sequential reads with the identical settings but with Bob Liu's multiqueue patches reverted from dom0 and guest kernels.
>>>> The results we obtained were *better* than the results we got with multiqueue patches applied:
>>>>
>>>> fio_threads io_depth block_size 1-queue_iops 8-queue_iops *no-mq-patches_iops*
>>>> 8 32 512 158K 264K 321K
>>>> 8 32 1K 157K 260K 328K
>>>> 8 32 2K 157K 258K 336K
>>>> 8 32 4K 148K 257K 308K
>>>> 8 32 8K 124K 207K 188K
>>>> 8 32 16K 84K 105K 82K
>>>> 8 32 32K 50K 54K 36K
>>>> 8 32 64K 24K 27K 16K
>>>> 8 32 128K 11K 13K 11K
>>>>
>>>> We noticed that the requests are not merged by the guest when the multiqueue patches are applied,
>>>> which results in a regression for small block sizes (RealSSD P320h's optimal block size is around 32-64KB).
>>>>
>>>> We observed similar regression for the Dell MZ-5EA1000-0D3 100 GB 2.5" Internal SSD
>>>>
>>>> As I understand blk-mq layer bypasses I/O scheduler which also effectively disables merges.
>>>> Could you explain why it is difficult to enable merging in the blk-mq layer?
>>>> That could help closing the performance gap we observed.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, the tests shows that the multiqueue patches does not improve the performance,
>>>> at least when it comes to sequential read/writes operations.
>>> blk-mq still provides merging, there should be no difference there. Does the xen patches set BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE?
>>>
>> Yes.
>> Is it possible that xen-blkfront driver dequeue requests too fast after we have multiple hardware queues?
>> Because new requests don't have the chance merging with old requests which were already dequeued and issued.
>>
>
> For some reason we don't see merges even when we set multiqueue to 1.
> Below are some stats from the guest system when doing sequential 4KB reads:
>
> $ fio --name=test --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --rw=read --numjobs=8
> --iodepth=32 --time_based=1 --runtime=300 --bs=4KB
> --filename=/dev/xvdb
>
> $ iostat -xt 5 /dev/xvdb
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
> 0.50 0.00 2.73 85.14 2.00 9.63
>
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
> xvdb 0.00 0.00 156926.00 0.00 627704.00 0.00
> 8.00 30.06 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.01 100.48
>
> $ cat /sys/block/xvdb/queue/scheduler
> none
>
> $ cat /sys/block/xvdb/queue/nomerges
> 0
>
> Relevant bits from the xenstore configuration on the dom0:
>
> /local/domain/0/backend/vbd/2/51728/dev = "xvdb"
> /local/domain/0/backend/vbd/2/51728/backend-kind = "vbd"
> /local/domain/0/backend/vbd/2/51728/type = "phy"
> /local/domain/0/backend/vbd/2/51728/multi-queue-max-queues = "1"
>
> /local/domain/2/device/vbd/51728/multi-queue-num-queues = "1"
> /local/domain/2/device/vbd/51728/ring-ref = "9"
> /local/domain/2/device/vbd/51728/event-channel = "60"

If you add --iodepth-batch=16 to that fio command line? Both mq and
non-mq relies on plugging to get batching in the use case above,
otherwise IO is dispatched immediately. O_DIRECT is immediate. I'd be
more interested in seeing a test case with buffered IO of a file system
on top of the xvdb device, if we're missing merging for that case, then
that's a much bigger issue.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-11 19:41    [W:0.089 / U:2.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site