[Virtio-fs] [PATCH v4 0/8] fuse,virtiofs: support per-file DAX

[JeffleXu]

Hi Vivek, Miklos,

On 9/16/21 4:21 PM, JeffleXu wrote:
> Hi, I add some performance statistics below.
> 
> 
> On 8/17/21 8:40 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Miklos Szeredi (miklos at szeredi.hu) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 04:22, Jeffle Xu <jefflexu at linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This patchset adds support of per-file DAX for virtiofs, which is
>>>>> inspired by Ira Weiny's work on ext4[1] and xfs[2].
>>>>
>>>> Can you please explain the background of this change in detail?
>>>>
>>>> Why would an admin want to enable DAX for a particular virtiofs file
>>>> and not for others?
>>>
>>> Where we're contending on virtiofs dax cache size it makes a lot of
>>> sense; it's quite expensive for us to map something into the cache
>>> (especially if we push something else out), so selectively DAXing files
>>> that are expected to be hot could help reduce cache churn.
> 
> Yes, the performance of dax can be limited when the DAX window is
> limited, where dax window may be contended by multiple files.
> 
> I tested kernel compiling in virtiofs, emulating the scenario where a
> lot of files contending dax window and triggering dax window reclaiming.
> 
> Environment setup:
> - guest vCPU: 16
> - time make vmlinux -j128
> 
> type    | cache  | cache-size | time
> ------- | ------ | ---------- | ----
> non-dax | always |   --       | real 2m48.119s
> dax     | always | 64M        | real 4m49.563s
> dax     | always |   1G       | real 3m14.200s
> dax     | always |   4G       | real 2m41.141s
> 
> 
> It can be seen that there's performance drop, comparing to the normal
> buffered IO, when dax window resource is restricted and dax window
> relcaiming is triggered. The smaller the cache size is, the worse the
> performance is. The performance drop can be alleviated and eliminated as
> cache size increases.
> 
> Though we may not compile kernel in virtiofs, indeed we may access a lot
> of small files in virtiofs and suffer this performance drop.
> 
> 
>> In that case probaly we should just make DAX window larger. I assume
> 
> Yes, as the DAX window gets larger, it is less likely that we can run
> short of dax window resource.
> 
> However it doesn't come without cost. 'struct page' descriptor for dax
> window will consume guest memory at a ratio of ~1.5% (64/4096 = ~1.5%,
> page descriptor is of 64 bytes size, assuming 4K sized page). That is,
> every 1GB cache size will cost 16MB guest memory. As the cache size
> increases, the memory footprint for page descriptors also increases,
> which may offset the benefit of dax by eliminating guest page cache.
> 
> In summary, per-file dax feature tries to achieve a balance between
> performance and memory overhead, by offering a finer gained control for
> dax to users.
> 

I'm not sure if this is adequate for introducing per-file dax feature to
community? Need some feedback from the community.

And if that's the case, I also want to know if setting/clearing S_DAX
inside guest is needed, since in our internal using scenario, setting
S_DAX from host daemon is adequate. If setting/clearing S_DAX inside
guest can be omitted then, the negotiation during FUSE_INIT phase is not
needed either. After all we could completely rely on the FUSE_ATTR_DAX
flag feeded by host daemon to see if dax shall be enabled or not for
corresponding file. The whole patch set will also be somehow simper then.


-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle