Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Use --thread-pool-size=0 to mean no thread pool

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:06:37AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:35 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 08:33:50PM +0000, Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos wrote:
> > > Hi Vivek,
> > >
> > > I have tested with Kata 1.12-apha0, the results seems that are better for the use fio config I am tracking.
> > >
> > > The fio config does  randrw:
> > >
> > > fio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=random_read_write.fio --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=200M --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75
> > >
> >
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > Thanks for the testing.
> >
> > So basically two conclusions from your tests.
> >
> > - for virtiofs, --thread-pool-size=0 is performing better as comapred
> >   to --thread-pool-size=1 as well as --thread-pool-size=64. Approximately
> >   35-40% better.
> >
> > - virtio-9p is still approximately 30% better than virtiofs
> >   --thread-pool-size=0.
> >
> > As I had done the analysis that this particular workload (mixed read and
> > write) is bad with virtiofs because after every write we are invalidating
> > attrs and cache so next read ends up fetching attrs again. I had posted
> > patches to gain some of the performance.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200929185015.GG220516@redhat.com/
> >
> > But I got the feedback to look into implementing file leases instead.
> 
> Hmm, the FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA feature is buggy, how about turning it
> off for now?   9p doesn't have it, so no point in enabling it for
> virtiofs by default.

If we disable FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA, then client page cache will not
be invalidated even after 1 sec, right? (for cache=auto).

Given now we also want to target sharing directory tree among multiple
clients, keeping FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA enabled should help.

> 
> Also I think some confusion comes from cache=auto being the default
> for virtiofs.    Not sure what the default is for 9p, but comparing
> default to default will definitely not be apples to apples since this
> mode is nonexistent in 9p.
> 
> 9p:cache=none  <-> virtiofs:cache=none
> 9p:cache=loose <-> virtiofs:cache=always
> 
> "9p:cache=mmap" and "virtiofs:cache=auto" have no match.

Agreed from performance comparison point of view.

I will prefer cache=auto default (over cache=none) for virtiofsd. During
some kernel compilation tests over virtiofs, cache=none was painfully
slow as compared to cache=auto.

Thanks
Vivek