qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To: Ying Fang <fangying1@huawei.com>
Cc: mreitz@redhat.com,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	jianjay.zhou@huawei.com, dengkai1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host cdrom device
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:46:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190108124650.GC11492@linux.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9af4a3f8-3095-61dc-77fa-17a877e48a02@huawei.com>

Am 29.12.2018 um 07:33 hat Ying Fang geschrieben:
> Hi.
> Recently one of our customer complained about the I/O performance of QEMU emulated host cdrom device.
> I did some investigation on it and there was still some point I could not figure out. So I had to ask for your help.
> 
> Here is the application scenario setup by our customer.
> filename.iso        /dev/sr0           /dev/cdrom
> remote client    -->  host(cdemu)      -->  Linux VM
> (1)A remote client maps an iso file to x86 host machine through network using tcp.
> (2)The cdemu daemon then load it as a local virtual cdrom disk drive.
> (3)A VM is launched with the virtual cdrom disk drive configured.
> The VM can make use of this virtual cdrom to install an OS in the iso file.
> 
> The network bandwith btw the remote client and host is 100Mbps, we test I/O perf using: dd if=/dev/sr0 of=/dev/null bs=32K count=100000.
> And we have
> (1) I/O perf of host side /dev/sr0 is 11MB/s;
> (2) I/O perf of /dev/cdrom inside VM is 3.8MB/s.
> 
> As we can see, I/O perf of cdrom inside the VM is about 34.5% compared with host side.
> FlameGraph is used to find out the bottleneck of this operation and we find out that too much time is occupied by calling *bdrv_is_inserted*.
> Then we dig into the code and figure out that the ioctl in *cdrom_is_inserted* takes too much time, because it triggers io_schdule_timeout in kernel.
> In the code path of emulated cdrom device, each DMA I/O request consists of several *bdrv_is_inserted*, which degrades the I/O performance by about 31% in our test.
> static bool cdrom_is_inserted(BlockDriverState *bs)
> {
>     BDRVRawState *s = bs->opaque;
>     int ret;
> 
>     ret = ioctl(s->fd, CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS, CDSL_CURRENT);
>     return ret == CDS_DISC_OK;
> }
> A flamegraph svg file (cdrom.svg) is attachieved in this email to show the code timing profile we've tested.
> 
> So here is my question.
> (1) Why do we regularly check the presence of a cdrom disk drive in the code path?  Can we do it asynchronously?
> (2) Can we drop some check point in the code path to improve the performance?
> Thanks.

I'm actually not sure why so many places check it. Just letting an I/O
request fail if the CD was removed would probably be easier.

To try out whether that would improve performance significantly, you
could try to use the host_device backend rather than the host_cdrom
backend. That one doesn't implement .bdrv_is_inserted, so the operation
will be cheap (just return true unconditionally).

You will also lose eject/lock passthrough when doing so, so this is not
the final solution, but if it proves to be a lot faster, we can check
where bdrv_is_inserted() calls are actually important (if anywhere) and
hopefully remove some even for the host_cdrom case.

Kevin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-01-08 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-29  6:33 [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host cdrom device Ying Fang
2019-01-07  1:23 ` Ying Fang
2019-01-08 12:46 ` Kevin Wolf [this message]
2019-01-09  3:20   ` Ying Fang
2019-01-15 20:15     ` John Snow
2019-01-16  2:48       ` Ying Fang
2019-01-18 22:43         ` John Snow
2019-01-22  3:26           ` fangying
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-01-22  5:55 fangying
2018-12-29  6:29 Ying Fang

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=20190108124650.GC11492@linux.fritz.box \
    --to=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=dengkai1@huawei.com \
    --cc=fangying1@huawei.com \
    --cc=jianjay.zhou@huawei.com \
    --cc=mreitz@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).