From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <toml@us.ibm.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: Make it more scalable by creating a vhost thread per device.
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:49:17 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBB822D.7050400@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1270488911.27874.43.camel@w-sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com>
On 04/05/2010 08:35 PM, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 14:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:31:20AM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
>>
>>> Make vhost scalable by creating a separate vhost thread per vhost
>>> device. This provides better scaling across multiple guests and with
>>> multiple interfaces in a guest.
>>>
>> Thanks for looking into this. An alternative approach is
>> to simply replace create_singlethread_workqueue with
>> create_workqueue which would get us a thread per host CPU.
>>
>> It seems that in theory this should be the optimal approach
>> wrt CPU locality, however, in practice a single thread
>> seems to get better numbers. I have a TODO to investigate this.
>> Could you try looking into this?
>>
> Yes. I tried using create_workqueue(), but the results were not good
> atleast when the number of guest interfaces is less than the number
> of CPUs. I didn't try more than 8 guests.
> Creating a separate thread per guest interface seems to be more
> scalable based on the testing i have done so far.
>
Thread per guest is also easier to account. I'm worried about guests
impacting other guests' performance outside scheduler control by
extensive use of vhost.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-06 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-02 17:31 [PATCH] vhost: Make it more scalable by creating a vhost thread per device Sridhar Samudrala
2010-04-04 11:14 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-05 17:35 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2010-04-06 18:49 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-04-09 0:05 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2010-04-09 0:14 ` Rick Jones
2010-04-09 15:39 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2010-04-09 17:13 ` Rick Jones
2010-04-11 15:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-12 17:35 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2010-04-12 17:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-04-12 17:50 ` Rick Jones
2010-04-12 16:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=4BBB822D.7050400@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sri@us.ibm.com \
--cc=toml@us.ibm.com \
/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.