From: "Lukáš Doktor" <ldoktor@redhat.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: qemu-nbd performance regression in bd2cd4a4
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:49:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1833dcd6-45fc-4da0-2e51-82f71d4fc43a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pnfyjo4jqh2xl2y2n3tk3pk44u7agxmbopd2bm5cf5wuxveyge@ise6yazqzt4l>
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1943 bytes --]
I see, let me mark it as "expected" regression and hopefully I'll detect the optimization if they are ever implemented. Thank you for the explanation.
Regards,
Lukáš
Dne 06. 04. 23 v 17:07 Eric Blake napsal(a):
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 12:55:38PM +0200, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
>> Hello Florian, folks,
>>
>> my CI caught ~5% regression (in 60s runs, when using 240s it was about 10%) in qemu-nbd performance bisected multiple-times up to bd2cd4a441ded163b62371790876f28a9b834317 in fio when using 4k blocks read. Note that other scenarios (reads using 1024k blocks, writes using 4 nor 1024k blocks) were not affected. Is this expected?
>
> Large operations (1024k blocks) are dominated by the transaction
> itself, and not the network overhead. Small operations (4k reads)
> used to benefit from TCP batching (introduces latency, but less
> network overhead), but we intentionally started corking things
> (decreases latency, but now the network is prone to send smaller
> packets which means more network overhead). So a slight decrease in
> performance for only small size traffic is not surprising. I'm not
> sure if anything can be done about it in the short term, because the
> benefits in the other direction (magnitude order of improvement for
> TLS traffic) by being transactional instead of batching outweigh the
> network overhead of small transactions, and most clients are going to
> do more than just minimum-size reads.
>
> However, commit bd2cd4a44 does mention a potential future optimization
> of not uncorking if there is an easy way to detect if another reply in
> the queue will be sent shortly. Also, distinct actions for corking
> and uncorking costs extra system calls; it may be possible to utilize
> MSG_MORE on the existing data syscall paths instead of having to
> separately cork/uncork, which in turn could still mark message
> transaction boundaries with less overhead.
>
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 12925 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-12 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-06 10:55 qemu-nbd performance regression in bd2cd4a4 Lukáš Doktor
2023-04-06 11:20 ` Florian Westphal
2023-04-06 15:07 ` Eric Blake
2023-04-12 8:49 ` Lukáš Doktor [this message]
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=1833dcd6-45fc-4da0-2e51-82f71d4fc43a@redhat.com \
--to=ldoktor@redhat.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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 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).