All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To: Jaehoon Kim <jhkim@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, fam@euphon.net, armbru@redhat.com,
	eblake@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, eduardo@habkost.net,
	dave@treblig.org, sw@weilnetz.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] aio-poll: improve aio-polling efficiency
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:27:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260219222717.GA1011077@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260113174824.464720-1-jhkim@linux.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1794 bytes --]

Hi Jaehoon,
Following the call earlier this week I ran a single fio job to get a
clearer picture of:
1. The QEMU 10.0.0 regression that prompted you to optimize AioContext
   polling.
2. How the poll-weight parameter affects IOPS.

run      rw        bs   numjobs iothreads iops   diff
v9.2.0   randread  8k   1       1         174944 3.6%
v10.0.0  randread  8k   1       1         174285 3.2%
baseline randread  8k   1       1         168908 0.0%
w2       randread  8k   1       1         163718 -3.1%
w3       randread  8k   1       1         165805 -1.8%
w4       randread  8k   1       1         167388 -0.9%

This time I only ran randread bs=8k iodepth=8 numjobs=1 with a single
IOThread.

Observations:

- There might be an IOPS regression between v10.0.0 and the baseline
  (9ad7f544c696) that your patches apply on top of. This is different
  from the CPU utilization regression that you found in v9.2.0 ->
  v10.0.0. I will bisect it.

- poll-weight=3 and 4 improve IOPS to a level that is acceptable. CPU
  utilization looks like this:

run         %usr     %nice      %sys   %iowait    %steal      %irq     %soft    %guest    %gnice     %idle
baseline   49.37      0.00     31.10      0.00      0.00     11.61      0.04      0.00      0.00      7.89
w2         46.24      0.00     32.61      0.00      0.00     11.84      0.10      0.00      0.00      9.21
w3         48.04      0.00     32.17      0.00      0.00     11.98      0.08      0.00      0.00      7.73
w4         48.56      0.00     31.23      0.00      0.00     11.48      0.03      0.00      0.00      8.69

poll-weight=2 is the winner at CPU utilization. I'm not sure if
poll-weight=3 will produce an acceptable CPU utilization improvement for
you. Do you have data or want to re-run to measure poll-weight=3?

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-02-19 22:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-13 17:48 [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] aio-poll: improve aio-polling efficiency Jaehoon Kim
2026-01-13 17:48 ` [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] aio-poll: avoid unnecessary polling time computation Jaehoon Kim
2026-02-16 14:58   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-16 15:21   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-16 20:47     ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-02-17 13:16       ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-18 13:43         ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-01-13 17:48 ` [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] aio-poll: refine iothread polling using weighted handler intervals Jaehoon Kim
2026-01-13 17:48 ` [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] qapi/iothread: introduce poll-weight parameter for aio-poll Jaehoon Kim
2026-01-14  7:48   ` Markus Armbruster
2026-01-15  5:14     ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-01-15  7:28       ` Markus Armbruster
2026-01-15 10:05         ` Halil Pasic
2026-01-15 16:00           ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-01-16  8:19           ` Markus Armbruster
2026-01-19 18:16 ` [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] aio-poll: improve aio-polling efficiency Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-01-23 19:15   ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-01-27 21:11     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-03 21:12     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-06  6:50       ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-02-12 18:53         ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-13 15:13           ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-02-16 12:42             ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-19 22:27 ` Stefan Hajnoczi [this message]
2026-02-20 19:00   ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-02-24  4:24     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2026-02-26  6:03     ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-03-09 20:46       ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-03-23 14:08         ` JAEHOON KIM
2026-03-23 18:51           ` Stefan Hajnoczi

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=20260219222717.GA1011077@fedora \
    --to=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=armbru@redhat.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave@treblig.org \
    --cc=eblake@redhat.com \
    --cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
    --cc=fam@euphon.net \
    --cc=jhkim@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=sw@weilnetz.de \
    /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.