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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).