From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:46:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200922174618.GV1989025@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200922174255.GC57620@redhat.com>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:42:55PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:32:16PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > glib offers thread pools and it seems to support "exclusive" and "shared"
> > > thread pools.
> > >
> > > https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Thread-Pools.html#g-thread-pool-new
> > >
> > > Currently we use "exlusive" thread pools but its performance seems to be
> > > poor. I tried using "shared" thread pools and performance seems much
> > > better. I posted performance results here.
> > >
> > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00080.html
> > >
> > > So lets switch to shared thread pools. We can think of making it optional
> > > once somebody can show in what cases exclusive thread pools offer better
> > > results. For now, my simple performance tests across the board see
> > > better results with shared thread pools.
> >
> > I'm really curious why there's any perf difference between shared and
> > exclusive thread pools in the GLib impl.
> >
> > Looking at the code the main difference between the two is appears to
> > be around the way threads are spawned, specifically around the scheduler
> > attributes assigned.
> >
> > In the shared case, the threads in the pool will have their scheduler
> > attributes copied from the very first thread that calls g_thread_pool_new.
> >
> > In the exclusive case, the threads in the pool will inherit their
> > scheduler attributes from the thread which pushs the job that
> > causes the worker thread to be created.
> >
> > By schedular attributes, I mean all the items in the 'struct schedattr'
> > filled by sched_getattr()
> >
> > IOW, if threads in virtiofsd have varying schedular attributes this
> > could possibly explain the difference in performance you see between
> > the two setups.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Few things.
>
> - I think scheduler attributes are same for the thread creating
> pool as well as for thread pushing the job for virtiofsd.
>
> - My glib2 is old (2.58.3) and I think that did not have sched_getattr()
> stuff.
>
> - One difference I noticed is that in case of shared pool, it does not
> create extra threads if client is doing one request at a time. While
> exclusive pool seemed to push every request to a new thread in pool
> in sort of round robin fashion. It feels keeping requests being served
> from same thread helps in this particilar workload case.
Yeah, that does sound like a candidate for the cause. I wonder if that
was intentional in the GLib design or just an accidental impl they didn't
realize had performance implications. Might be worth filing a bug against
GLib if someone has free time & motivation to figure out a standalone
reproducer to demonstrate the performance difference in the GLib APIs.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-22 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-21 21:32 [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 12:03 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-09-22 12:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 12:59 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-09-22 17:42 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-09-22 17:46 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2020-09-23 12:22 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-09-24 9:29 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
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=20200922174618.GV1989025@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=virtio-fs@redhat.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).