Bug 893327 - virtio_scsi performance 20%+ worse than virtio_blk in some scenarios
Summary: virtio_scsi performance 20%+ worse than virtio_blk in some scenarios
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: qemu-kvm
Version: 6.4
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
high
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Fam Zheng
QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On: 1106420
Blocks: 999304 1002699
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-09 06:26 UTC by Xiaomei Gao
Modified: 2014-12-15 09:42 UTC (History)
20 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
: 999304 (view as bug list)
(edit)
Last Closed: 2014-12-15 09:42:18 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 4 Paolo Bonzini 2013-10-24 15:26:26 UTC
The main difference here is that vcpu0 is always at 100% in the virtio-scsi tests.  The load is much more balanced between vcpu0 and vcpu1 for virtio-blk.

This applies to both qcow2 and raw actually, but we only see worse performance from it in qcow2.  I think we should first analyze/fix this fairness issue to see whether it affects performance, because it's "weird".

Comment 5 Amos Kong 2013-10-29 03:18:29 UTC
Hi xgao,

can you list the host numanode info and the pin setup info?

Comment 6 Xiaomei Gao 2013-10-30 01:56:18 UTC
(In reply to Amos Kong from comment #5)
> Hi xgao,
> 
> can you list the host numanode info and the pin setup info?

Irqblance is running on both host and guest, we didn't do any pin setup on host and guest.

[root@hp-z800-06 ~]# numactl --hardware
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3
node 0 size: 8175 MB
node 0 free: 7287 MB
node 1 cpus: 4 5 6 7
node 1 size: 8192 MB
node 1 free: 7906 MB
node distances:
node   0   1 
  0:  10  20 
  1:  20  10

Comment 9 Xiaomei Gao 2014-04-03 02:42:39 UTC
(In reply to Fam Zheng from comment #8)
> Xiaomei,
> 
> This bug has been around for a while and I know we are switching to fio.
> Does latest performance tests have such vcpu fairness measurement (e.g. on
> 6.5, 6.6 and new qemu-kvm)? Can you help confirm if the unfairness is still
> observed?

Okay, We will test the latest 6.6 qemu-kvm and see if the issue still happened. We will update the comment once fresh results are on hand.

Comment 10 Ademar Reis 2014-05-28 11:52:15 UTC
(In reply to Xiaomei Gao from comment #9)
> (In reply to Fam Zheng from comment #8)
> > Xiaomei,
> > 
> > This bug has been around for a while and I know we are switching to fio.
> > Does latest performance tests have such vcpu fairness measurement (e.g. on
> > 6.5, 6.6 and new qemu-kvm)? Can you help confirm if the unfairness is still
> > observed?
> 
> Okay, We will test the latest 6.6 qemu-kvm and see if the issue still
> happened. We will update the comment once fresh results are on hand.

Keeping the needinfo until you have the test results. Thanks.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.