Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:56:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>,
       linux-aio@kvack.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
       Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: kvm aio wishlist
Message-ID: <20081125165613.GI22504@elte.hu>
References: <492B0CDD.7080000@redhat.com> <492B2348.9090008@oracle.com> <492B2976.3010209@redhat.com> <492B3912.3030707@oracle.com> <492BC5CB.6000609@redhat.com> <20081125101923.GA28123@in.ibm.com> <492BD807.4000002@redhat.com> <20081125145949.GD14147@elte.hu> <492C2D11.2030308@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <492C2D11.2030308@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1720
Lines: 46


* Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>   
>>> Perhaps a variant of syslet, that is kernel-only, and does:
>>>
>>> - always allocate a new kernel stack at io_submit() time, but not a   
>>> new thread
>>>     
>>
>> such a N:M threading design is a loss - sooner or later we arrive to a  
>> point where people actually start using it and then we want to  
>> load-balance and schedule these entities.
>>   
>
> It's only N:M as long as its nonblocking.  If it blocks it becomes 1:1  
> again.  If it doesn't, it's probably faster to do things on the same  
> cache as the caller.
>
>> So i'd suggest the kthread based async engine i wrote for syslets. It  
>> worked well and for kernel-only entities it schedules super-fast - it  
>> can do up to 20 million events per second on a 16-way box i'm testing  
>> on. The objections about syslets were not related to the scheduling of  
>> it but were mostly about the userspace API/ABI: you dont have to use  
>> that.
>
> I'd love to have something :)
>
> I guess any cache and latency considerations could be fixed if
> - we schedule a syslet for the first time when the thread that launched  
> it exits to userspace
> - we queue it on the current cpu's runqueue
>
> In that case, for the nonblocking case syslets and fibrils would 
> have very similar performance.

yes. Hence given that fibrills have various tradeoffs, we should do 
the syslet thread pool. The code is there and it works :)

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