From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com>,
"lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] NVMe Performance: Userspace vs Kernel
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:41:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1550266894.31902.104.camel@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DAB8A2DA-37D3-4CBE-8AD7-356E3CE8B0D3@nutanix.com>
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 21:19 +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to attend LSF/MM this year and discuss the kernel performance when accessing NVMe devices, specifically (but not limited to) Intel Optane Memory (which boasts very low latency and high
> iops/throughput per NVMe controller).
>
> Over the last year or two, I have done extensive experimentation comparing applications using libaio to those using SDPK. For hypervisors, where storage devices can be exclusively accessed with
> userspace drivers (given the device can be dedicated to a single process), using SPDK has proven to be significantly faster and more efficient. That remains true even in the latest versions of the
> kernel.
>
> I have presented work focusing on hypervisors in several conferences during this time. Although I appreciate the LSF/MM is more discussion-oriented, I am linking a couple of these presentations for
> reference:
>
> Flash Memory Summit 2018
> https://www.flashmemorysummit.com/English/Collaterals/Proceedings/2018/20180808_SOFT-202-1_Franciosi.pdf
>
> Linux Piter 2018
> https://linuxpiter.com/system/attachments/files/000/001/558/original/20181103_-_AHV_and_SPDK.pdf
>
> For LSF/MM, instead of focusing on hypervisors, I would like to discuss what can be done to achieve better efficiency and performance when using the kernel. My data include detailed results
> considering various scenarios like different NUMA configurations, IRQ affinity and polling modes.
Hi Felipe,
It seems like you missed the performance comparison between SPDK and io_uring
Jens posted recently?
Bart.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: bvanassche@acm.org (Bart Van Assche)
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] NVMe Performance: Userspace vs Kernel
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:41:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1550266894.31902.104.camel@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DAB8A2DA-37D3-4CBE-8AD7-356E3CE8B0D3@nutanix.com>
On Fri, 2019-02-15@21:19 +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to attend LSF/MM this year and discuss the kernel performance when accessing NVMe devices, specifically (but not limited to) Intel Optane Memory (which boasts very low latency and high
> iops/throughput per NVMe controller).
>
> Over the last year or two, I have done extensive experimentation comparing applications using libaio to those using SDPK. For hypervisors, where storage devices can be exclusively accessed with
> userspace drivers (given the device can be dedicated to a single process), using SPDK has proven to be significantly faster and more efficient. That remains true even in the latest versions of the
> kernel.
>
> I have presented work focusing on hypervisors in several conferences during this time. Although I appreciate the LSF/MM is more discussion-oriented, I am linking a couple of these presentations for
> reference:
>
> Flash Memory Summit 2018
> https://www.flashmemorysummit.com/English/Collaterals/Proceedings/2018/20180808_SOFT-202-1_Franciosi.pdf
>
> Linux Piter 2018
> https://linuxpiter.com/system/attachments/files/000/001/558/original/20181103_-_AHV_and_SPDK.pdf
>
> For LSF/MM, instead of focusing on hypervisors, I would like to discuss what can be done to achieve better efficiency and performance when using the kernel. My data include detailed results
> considering various scenarios like different NUMA configurations, IRQ affinity and polling modes.
Hi Felipe,
It seems like you missed the performance comparison between SPDK and io_uring
Jens posted recently?
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-15 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-15 21:19 [LSF/MM TOPIC] NVMe Performance: Userspace vs Kernel Felipe Franciosi
2019-02-15 21:19 ` Felipe Franciosi
2019-02-15 21:41 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2019-02-15 21:41 ` Bart Van Assche
[not found] ` <11A6C7D0-A26D-410F-8EE3-9AF524DF2050@nutanix.com>
2019-02-16 1:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-02-16 1:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-02-16 1:54 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-16 1:54 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-15 21:47 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-15 21:47 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-15 22:14 ` Felipe Franciosi
2019-02-15 22:14 ` Felipe Franciosi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1550266894.31902.104.camel@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=felipe@nutanix.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.