[libvirt RFC] virFile: new VIR_FILE_WRAPPER_BIG_PIPE to improve performance

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 04:49:46PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 3/25/22 12:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:34:29PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >> On 3/17/22 4:03 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >>> * Claudio Fontana (cfontana at suse.de) wrote:
> >>>> On 3/17/22 2:41 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/17/22 11:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:12:11AM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/16/22 1:17 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/14/22 6:48 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 06:38:31PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/22 6:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 05:30:01PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the first user is the qemu driver,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> virsh save/resume would slow to a crawl with a default pipe size (64k).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This improves the situation by 400%.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Going through io_helper still seems to incur in some penalty (~15%-ish)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> compared with direct qemu migration to a nc socket to a file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana at suse.de>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  src/qemu/qemu_driver.c    |  6 +++---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  src/qemu/qemu_saveimage.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  src/util/virfile.c        | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  src/util/virfile.h        |  1 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, I initially thought this to be a qemu performance issue,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> so you can find the discussion about this in qemu-devel:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Re: bad virsh save /dev/null performance (600 MiB/s max)"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2022-03/msg03142.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current results show these experimental averages maximum throughput
> >>>>>>> migrating to /dev/null per each FdWrapper Pipe Size (as per QEMU QMP
> >>>>>>> "query-migrate", tests repeated 5 times for each).
> >>>>>>> VM Size is 60G, most of the memory effectively touched before migration,
> >>>>>>> through user application allocating and touching all memory with
> >>>>>>> pseudorandom data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 64K:     5200 Mbps (current situation)
> >>>>>>> 128K:    5800 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 256K:   20900 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 512K:   21600 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 1M:     22800 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 2M:     22800 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 4M:     22400 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 8M:     22500 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 16M:    22800 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 32M:    22900 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 64M:    22900 Mbps
> >>>>>>> 128M:   22800 Mbps
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This above is the throughput out of patched libvirt with multiple Pipe Sizes for the FDWrapper.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, its bouncing around with noise after 1 MB. So I'd suggest that
> >>>>>> libvirt attempt to raise the pipe limit to 1 MB by default, but
> >>>>>> not try to go higher.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for the theoretical limit for the libvirt architecture,
> >>>>>>> I ran a qemu migration directly issuing the appropriate QMP
> >>>>>>> commands, setting the same migration parameters as per libvirt,
> >>>>>>> and then migrating to a socket netcatted to /dev/null via
> >>>>>>> {"execute": "migrate", "arguments": { "uri", "unix:///tmp/netcat.sock" } } :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> QMP:    37000 Mbps
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So although the Pipe size improves things (in particular the
> >>>>>>> large jump is for the 256K size, although 1M seems a very good value),
> >>>>>>> there is still a second bottleneck in there somewhere that
> >>>>>>> accounts for a loss of ~14200 Mbps in throughput.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting addition: I tested quickly on a system with faster cpus and larger VM sizes, up to 200GB,
> >>>> and the difference in throughput libvirt vs qemu is basically the same ~14500 Mbps.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~50000 mbps qemu to netcat socket to /dev/null
> >>>> ~35500 mbps virsh save to /dev/null
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems it is not proportional to cpu speed by the looks of it (not a totally fair comparison because the VM sizes are different).
> >>>
> >>> It might be closer to RAM or cache bandwidth limited though; for an extra copy.
> >>
> >> I was thinking about sendfile(2) in iohelper, but that probably
> >> can't work as the input fd is a socket, I am getting EINVAL.
> > 
> > Yep, sendfile() requires the input to be a mmapable FD,
> > and the output to be a socket.
> > 
> > Try splice() instead  which merely requires 1 end to be a
> > pipe, and the other end can be any FD afaik.
> > 
> 
> I did try splice(), but performance is worse by around 500%.

Hmm, that's certainly unexpected !

> Any ideas welcome,

I learnt there is also a newer  copy_file_range call, not sure if that's
any better.

You passed len as 1 MB, I wonder if passing MAXINT is viable ? We just
want to copy everything IIRC.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|