On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 09:22:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini
wrote:> On 24/05/21 16:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:13:05PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > Possible drawbacks of this approach:
> > >
> > > - Hardware virtio_blk implementations may find
virtqueue_disable_cb()
> > > expensive since it requires DMA. If such devices become
popular then
> > > the virtio_blk driver could use a similar approach to NVMe
when
> > > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is detected in the future.
> > >
> > > - If a blk_poll() thread is descheduled it not only hurts polling
> > > performance but also delays completion of non-REQ_HIPRI
requests on
> > > that virtqueue since vq notifications are disabled.
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a dangerous configuration. What argument exists
> > again just using dedicated poll queues?
>
> There isn't an equivalent of the admin queue in virtio-blk, which would
> allow the guest to configure the desired number of poll queues. The number
> of queues is fixed.
Dedicated vqs can be used for poll only, and I understand VM needn't to know
if the vq is polled or driven by IRQ in VM.
I tried that in v5.4, but not see obvious IOPS boost, so give up.
https://github.com/ming1/linux/commits/my_v5.4-virtio-irq-poll
Thanks,
Ming