[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host

From: fangying
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host cdrom device
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 05:55:43 +0000

I am not intended to send a patch now, I use the ‘read-only’ code snippet to 
prove that the I/O performance
can increase from 30% to 80% compared to host side if we do not call 
cdrom_is_inserted here. Obviously it is not
suitable to skip over checking cdrom drive status.

However I cannot come up with a proper solution right now. But I think there 
may be two approches.
One way that can check drive status equal to ioctl CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS but much 
faster. The other way
that let qemu catch drive status via event triggered mechanism.


发件人: fangying
发送时间: 2019年1月22日 11:27
收件人: John Snow <address@hidden>; Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
抄送: Zhoujian (jay) <address@hidden>; dengkai (A) <address@hidden>; qemu-devel 
<address@hidden>; mreitz <address@hidden>
主题: RE: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host 
cdrom device

发件人: John Snow
收件人: fangying<address@hidden<mailto:address@hidden>>;Kevin 
抄送: Zhoujian (jay)<address@hidden<mailto:address@hidden>>;dengkai 
主题: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Questions on the I/O performance of emulated host 
cdrom device
时间: 2019-01-19 06:43:43

On 1/15/19 9:48 PM, Ying Fang wrote:
> On 2019/1/16 4:15, John Snow wrote:
>> On 1/8/19 10:20 PM, Ying Fang wrote:
>>> On 2019/1/8 20:46, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>> Am 29.12.2018 um 07:33 hat Ying Fang geschrieben:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>> Recently one of our customer complained about the I/O performance of QEMU 
>>>>> emulated host cdrom device.
>>>>> I did some investigation on it and there was still some point I could not 
>>>>> figure out. So I had to ask for your help.
>>>>> Here is the application scenario setup by our customer.
>>>>> filename.iso        /dev/sr0           /dev/cdrom
>>>>> remote client    -->  host(cdemu)      -->  Linux VM
>>>>> (1)A remote client maps an iso file to x86 host machine through network 
>>>>> using tcp.
>>>>> (2)The cdemu daemon then load it as a local virtual cdrom disk drive.
>>>>> (3)A VM is launched with the virtual cdrom disk drive configured.
>>>>> The VM can make use of this virtual cdrom to install an OS in the iso 
>>>>> file.
>>>>> The network bandwith btw the remote client and host is 100Mbps, we test 
>>>>> I/O perf using: dd if=/dev/sr0 of=/dev/null bs=32K count=100000.
>>>>> And we have
>>>>> (1) I/O perf of host side /dev/sr0 is 11MB/s;
>>>>> (2) I/O perf of /dev/cdrom inside VM is 3.8MB/s.
>>>>> As we can see, I/O perf of cdrom inside the VM is about 34.5% compared 
>>>>> with host side.
>>>>> FlameGraph is used to find out the bottleneck of this operation and we 
>>>>> find out that too much time is occupied by calling *bdrv_is_inserted*.
>>>>> Then we dig into the code and figure out that the ioctl in 
>>>>> *cdrom_is_inserted* takes too much time, because it triggers 
>>>>> io_schdule_timeout in kernel.
>>>>> In the code path of emulated cdrom device, each DMA I/O request consists 
>>>>> of several *bdrv_is_inserted*, which degrades the I/O performance by 
>>>>> about 31% in our test.
>>>>> static bool cdrom_is_inserted(BlockDriverState *bs)
>>>>> {
>>>>>     BDRVRawState *s = bs->opaque;
>>>>>     int ret;
>>>>>     ret = ioctl(s->fd, CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS, CDSL_CURRENT);
>>>>>     return ret == CDS_DISC_OK;
>>>>> }
>>>>> A flamegraph svg file (cdrom.svg) is attachieved in this email to show 
>>>>> the code timing profile we've tested.
>>>>> So here is my question.
>>>>> (1) Why do we regularly check the presence of a cdrom disk drive in the 
>>>>> code path?  Can we do it asynchronously?
>> The ATAPI emulator needs to know if it has storage present to carry out
>> the request or to signal an error, so it checks. It might be the case
>> that the VM operator forcibly dismounted network storage without
>> awareness from the guest. (This is basically emulation of the case when
>> a user mechanically forces a CDROM tray open.)
>> I wasn't aware this check was so slow.
> It is fast enough in most case, however it may be slow if the cdrom drive is 
> a virtual drive mapped from remote client.
> This is showed in 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fangying/fangying.github.io/master/94E119FA-8BA1-41AB-A26A-FBDC635BCD2C.png
> The reason is ioctl(s->fd, CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS, CDSL_CURRENT) in 
> cdrom_is_inserted takes much time in this scenario.
>> Maybe we can just cache blk_is_inserted -- I don't remember if it's
>> possible to eject media without awareness from the device model, but if
>> this check winds up being slow in some configurations we can cache it.
> To cache media status is a good idea here, we check blk_is_inserted instead 
> and modify it when media status is changed.
>> This won't help the bdrv_check_byte_request calls, though, just ones
>> from the device model, see below
>>>>> (2) Can we drop some check point in the code path to improve the 
>>>>> performance?
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> I'm actually not sure why so many places check it. Just letting an I/O
>>>> request fail if the CD was removed would probably be easier.
>>> You can see those check points as showed in the attached flamegraph file in 
>>> this thread (rename it to cdrom.svg).
>>> It is called mainly in bdrv_check_byte_request and ide_atapi_cmd, and only 
>>> the host_cdrom backend implements
>>> it using cdrom_is_inserted.
>> in ide_atapi_cmd, try replacing:
>> `!s->tray_open && blk_is_inserted(s->blk) && s->cdrom_changed)`
>> with
>> `!s->tray_open && s->cdrom_changed && blk_is_inserted(s->blk))`
>> which should hopefully short-circuit calls to blk_is_inserted if
>> s->cdrom_changed is false, but it doesn't do much to fix the subsequent
>> call:
>> `    if ((cmd->flags & CHECK_READY) &&
>>         (!media_present(s) || !blk_is_inserted(s->blk)))`
>> which is unfortunately going to check blk_is_inserted quite a lot
>> because the read commands are tagged CHECK_READY...
> Yes you are right.
>> As alluded to above, too, I'm not sure what I can do about
>> bdrv_check_byte_request -- what happens if the io.c helpers don't
>> actually check this? Will they fail gracefully?
>> I guess there's one way to find out.
> I did some test here. As we can see only cdrom bdrv implements 
> bdrv_is_inserted,
> then I skip check presence of cdrom device.
> I test I/O using dd if=/dev/sr0 of=/dev/null bs=32K count=1000
> and manually disconnect the remote iso client from the host to inject error.
> I found it failed gracefully and send an I/O error event.
> monitor_qapi_event_emit[423]|: {"timestamp": {"seconds": 1547466098, 
> "microseconds": 740265}, "event": "BLOCK_IO_ERROR", "data":
> {"device": "drive-ide0-0-1", "node-name": "#block369", "reason": 
> "Input/output error", "operation": "read", "action": "report"}}
> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> index 45145c5..5371ce2 100644
> --- a/block.c
> +++ b/block.c
> @@ -3479,6 +3479,11 @@ bool bdrv_is_inserted(BlockDriverState *bs)
>      if (!drv) {
>          return false;
>      }
> +
> +    if (bdrv_is_read_only(bs)) {
> +       return true;
> +    }
> +
>      if (drv->bdrv_is_inserted) {
>          return drv->bdrv_is_inserted(bs);
>      }
> Thanks.
>>>> To try out whether that would improve performance significantly, you
>>>> could try to use the host_device backend rather than the host_cdrom
>>>> backend. That one doesn't implement .bdrv_is_inserted, so the operation
>>>> will be cheap (just return true unconditionally).
>>> The remote client maps filename.iso to host virtual cdrom drive.
>>> We use xml like
>>>     <disk type='block' device='cdrom'>
>>>       <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='none' io='native'/>
>>>       <source dev='/dev/sr0'/>
>>>       <target dev='hdb' bus='ide'/>
>>>       <readonly/>
>>>       <boot order='2'/>
>>>       <address type='drive' controller='0' bus='0' target='0' unit='1'/>
>>>     </disk>
>>> to attach the virtual cdrom drive into guest and backend bdrv is host_cdrom.
>>> Sorry I do not know how to use the host_device backend here.
>>>> You will also lose eject/lock passthrough when doing so, so this is not
>>>> the final solution, but if it proves to be a lot faster, we can check
>>>> where bdrv_is_inserted() calls are actually important (if anywhere) and
>>>> hopefully remove some even for the host_cdrom case.
>>> You mean if we do not check *cdrom_is_inserted*, we may lose eject/lock 
>>> here ?
>>> I wonder we used to check the presence of the cdrom device each time it is 
>>> touched
>>> though I am not familiar with this feature.
>>>> Kevin
>>>> .

Do you intend to send a patch along? I doubt I'll be able to prioritize
this but I will look over any patches that get sent. I am a little
skeptical of the "read_only" optimization, I might need Kevin's input on
that one, but a patch would be a good place for that discussion.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]