On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/07/2016 11:18, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> Those 3 red spikes and a blue hill is what we have to focus on. The
>> blue hill at the right corner of the chart means that almost always the
>> ring buffer was observed as full, i.e. qemu_laio_completion_bh() got
>> a chance to reap completions not very often, meanwhile completed
>> requests stand in the ring buffer for quite a long time which degrades
>> the overall performance.
>>
>> The results covered by the red line are much better and that can be
>> explained by those 3 red spikes, which are almost in the middle of the
>> whole distribution, i.e. qemu_laio_completion_bh() is called more often,
>> completed requests do not stall, giving fio a chance to submit new fresh
>> requests.
>>
>> The theoretical fix would be to schedule completion BH just after
>> successful io_submit, i.e.:
>
> What about removing the qemu_bh_cancel but keeping the rest of the patch?
That exactly what I did. Numbers go to expected from ~1600MB/s to ~1800MB/s.
So basically this hunk of the debatable patch:
if (event_notifier_test_and_clear(&s->e)) {
- qemu_bh_schedule(s->completion_bh);
+ qemu_laio_completion_bh(s);
}
does not have any impact and can be ignored. At least I did not notice
anything important.
>
> I'm also interested in a graph with this patch ("linux-aio: prevent
> submitting more than MAX_EVENTS") on top of origin/master.
I can plot it also of course.
>
> Thanks for the analysis. Sometimes a picture _is_ worth a thousand
> words, even if it's measuring "only" second-order effects (# of
> completions is not what causes the slowdown, but # of completions
> affects latency which causes the slowdown).
Yes, you are right, latency. With userspace io_getevents ~0 costs we
can peek requests as often as we like to decrease latency on very
fast devices. That can also bring something. Probably after each
io_submit() it makes sense to peek and complete something.
--
Roman
