Re: [PATCH 04/10] xen/blkfront: separate ring information to an new struct

From: David Vrabel
Date: Thu Feb 19 2015 - 06:14:46 EST

On 19/02/15 11:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> El 19/02/15 a les 3.05, Bob Liu ha escrit:
>> On 02/19/2015 02:08 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: 18 February 2015 17:38
>>>> To: Roger Pau Monne
>>>> Cc: Bob Liu; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Vrabel; linux-
>>>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Felipe Franciosi; axboe@xxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] xen/blkfront: separate ring information to an new
>>>> struct
>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 06:28:49PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> El 15/02/15 a les 9.18, Bob Liu ha escrit:
>>>>> AFAICT you seem to have a list of persistent grants, indirect pages
>>>>> and a grant table callback for each ring, isn't this supposed to be
>>>>> shared between all rings?
>>>>> I don't think we should be going down that route, or else we can hoard
>>>>> a large amount of memory and grants.
>>>> It does remove the lock that would have to be accessed by each ring thread to
>>>> access those. Those values (grants) can be limited to be a smaller value such
>>>> that the overall number is the same as it was with the previous version. As in:
>>>> each ring has = MAX_GRANTS / nr_online_cpus().
>>> We should definitely be concerned with the amount of memory consumed on the backend for each plugged virtual disk. We have faced several problems in XenServer around this area before; it drastically affects VBD scalability per host.
>> Right, so we have to keep both the lock and the amount of memory
>> consumed in mind.
>>> This makes me think that all the persistent grants work was done as a workaround while we were facing several performance problems around concurrent grant un/mapping operations. Given all the recent submissions made around this (grant ops) area, is this something we should perhaps revisit and discuss whether we want to continue offering persistent grants as a feature?
>> Agree, Life would be easier if we can remove the persistent feature.
> I was thinking about this yesterday, and IMHO I think we should remove
> persistent grants now while it's not too entangled, leaving it for later
> will just make our life more miserable.
> While it's true that persistent grants provide a throughput increase by
> preventing grant table operations and TLB flushes, it has several
> problems that cannot by avoided:
> - Memory/grants hoarding, we need to reserve the same amount of memory
> as the amount of data that we want to have in-flight. While this is not
> so critical for memory, it is for grants, since using too many grants
> can basically deadlock other PV interfaces. There's no way to avoid this
> since it's the design behind persistent grants.
> - Memcopy: guest needs to perform a memcopy of all data that goes
> through blkfront. While not so critical, Felipe found systems were
> memcopy was more expensive than grant map/unmap in the backend (IIRC
> those were AMD systems).
> - Complexity/interactions: when persistent grants was designed number
> of requests was limited to 32 and each request could only contain 11
> pages. This means we had to use 352 pages/grants which was fine. Now
> that we have indirect IO and multiqueue in the horizon this number has
> gone up by orders of magnitude, I don't think this is viable/useful any
> more.
> If Konrad/Bob agree I would like to send a patch to remove persistent
> grants and then have the multiqueue series rebased on top of that.

I agree with this.

I think we can get better performance/scalability gains of with
improvements to grant table locking and TLB flush avoidance.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at