Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Tue Sep 04 2012 - 10:20:30 EST


On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 03:49:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/09/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> > This patch adds queue steering to virtio-scsi. When a target is sent
> >> > multiple requests, we always drive them to the same queue so that FIFO
> >> > processing order is kept. However, if a target was idle, we can choose
> >> > a queue arbitrarily. In this case the queue is chosen according to the
> >> > current VCPU, so the driver expects the number of request queues to be
> >> > equal to the number of VCPUs. This makes it easy and fast to select
> >> > the queue, and also lets the driver optimize the IRQ affinity for the
> >> > virtqueues (each virtqueue's affinity is set to the CPU that "owns"
> >> > the queue).
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > I guess an alternative is a per-target vq.
> > Is the reason you avoid this that you expect more targets
> > than cpus? If yes this is something you might want to
> > mention in the log.
>
> One reason is that, even though in practice I expect roughly the same
> number of targets and VCPUs, hotplug means the number of targets is
> difficult to predict and is usually fixed to 256.
>
> The other reason is that per-target vq didn't give any performance
> advantage. The bonus comes from cache locality and less process
> migrations, more than from the independent virtqueues.
>
> Paolo

Okay, and why is per-target worse for cache locality?

--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/