Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 0/5] Multi-queue support for xen-blkfront and xen-blkback

[Bob Liu <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/10/2015 07:03 PM, Rafal Mielniczuk wrote:
> On 01/07/15 04:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 08:21 AM, Marcus Granado wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Our measurements for the multiqueue patch indicate a clear improvement
>>> in iops when more queues are used.
>>>
>>> The measurements were obtained under the following conditions:
>>>
>>> - using blkback as the dom0 backend with the multiqueue patch applied to
>>> a dom0 kernel 4.0 on 8 vcpus.
>>>
>>> - using a recent Ubuntu 15.04 kernel 3.19 with multiqueue frontend
>>> applied to be used as a guest on 4 vcpus
>>>
>>> - using a micron RealSSD P320h as the underlying local storage on a Dell
>>> PowerEdge R720 with 2 Xeon E5-2643 v2 cpus.
>>>
>>> - fio 2.2.7-22-g36870 as the generator of synthetic loads in the guest.
>>> We used direct_io to skip caching in the guest and ran fio for 60s
>>> reading a number of block sizes ranging from 512 bytes to 4MiB. Queue
>>> depth of 32 for each queue was used to saturate individual vcpus in the
>>> guest.
>>>
>>> We were interested in observing storage iops for different values of
>>> block sizes. Our expectation was that iops would improve when increasing
>>> the number of queues, because both the guest and dom0 would be able to
>>> make use of more vcpus to handle these requests.
>>>
>>> These are the results (as aggregate iops for all the fio threads) that
>>> we got for the conditions above with sequential reads:
>>>
>>> fio_threads  io_depth  block_size   1-queue_iops  8-queue_iops
>>>      8           32       512           158K         264K
>>>      8           32        1K           157K         260K
>>>      8           32        2K           157K         258K
>>>      8           32        4K           148K         257K
>>>      8           32        8K           124K         207K
>>>      8           32       16K            84K         105K
>>>      8           32       32K            50K          54K
>>>      8           32       64K            24K          27K
>>>      8           32      128K            11K          13K
>>>
>>> 8-queue iops was better than single queue iops for all the block sizes.
>>> There were very good improvements as well for sequential writes with
>>> block size 4K (from 80K iops with single queue to 230K iops with 8
>>> queues), and no regressions were visible in any measurement performed.
>> Great results! And I don't know why this code has lingered for so long, 
>> so thanks for helping get some attention to this again.
>>
>> Personally I'd be really interested in the results for the same set of 
>> tests, but without the blk-mq patches. Do you have them, or could you 
>> potentially run them?
>>
> Hello,
> 
> We rerun the tests for sequential reads with the identical settings but with 
> Bob Liu's multiqueue patches reverted from dom0 and guest kernels.
> The results we obtained were *better* than the results we got with multiqueue 
> patches applied:
> 
> fio_threads  io_depth  block_size   1-queue_iops  8-queue_iops  
> *no-mq-patches_iops*
>      8           32       512           158K         264K         321K
>      8           32        1K           157K         260K         328K
>      8           32        2K           157K         258K         336K
>      8           32        4K           148K         257K         308K
>      8           32        8K           124K         207K         188K
>      8           32       16K            84K         105K         82K
>      8           32       32K            50K          54K         36K
>      8           32       64K            24K          27K         16K
>      8           32      128K            11K          13K         11K
> 
> We noticed that the requests are not merged by the guest when the multiqueue 
> patches are applied,
> which results in a regression for small block sizes (RealSSD P320h's optimal 
> block size is around 32-64KB).
> 
> We observed similar regression for the Dell MZ-5EA1000-0D3 100 GB 2.5" 
> Internal SSD
> 

Which block scheduler was used in domU?  Please try to "cat 
/sys/block/sdxxx/queue/scheduler".
How about the result if using "noop" scheduler?

Thanks,
Bob Liu

> As I understand blk-mq layer bypasses I/O scheduler which also effectively 
> disables merges.
> Could you explain why it is difficult to enable merging in the blk-mq layer?
> That could help closing the performance gap we observed.
> 
> Otherwise, the tests shows that the multiqueue patches does not improve the 
> performance,
> at least when it comes to sequential read/writes operations.
> 
> Rafal
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel