mirror of
https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers.git
synced 2025-04-29 12:14:48 +00:00
packaging: Apply virtiofs performance related fixes to 5.x
Vivek Goyal found out that using "shared" thread pool, instead of "exclusive" results in better performance. Knowning that and with the plan to have virtio-fs as the default fs for the 2.0, let's bring this patch in for both 5.0 and 5.1. Fixes: #944 Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Fabiano Fidêncio
parent
7470055cdc
commit
1c528cd1cf
@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
From 04d325e86f79bd61f8fd50d45ff795aca0dd3404 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
|
||||
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
|
||||
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:32:16 -0400
|
||||
Subject: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool
|
||||
|
||||
glib offers thread pools and it seems to support "exclusive" and "shared"
|
||||
thread pools.
|
||||
|
||||
https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Thread-Pools.html#g-thread-pool-new
|
||||
|
||||
Currently we use "exlusive" thread pools but its performance seems to be
|
||||
poor. I tried using "shared" thread pools and performance seems much
|
||||
better. I posted performance results here.
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00080.html
|
||||
|
||||
So lets switch to shared thread pools. We can think of making it optional
|
||||
once somebody can show in what cases exclusive thread pools offer better
|
||||
results. For now, my simple performance tests across the board see
|
||||
better results with shared thread pools.
|
||||
|
||||
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
|
||||
Message-Id: <20200921213216.GE13362@redhat.com>
|
||||
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
|
||||
Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
|
||||
With seccomp fix from Miklos
|
||||
---
|
||||
tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 2 +-
|
||||
tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c | 2 ++
|
||||
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
|
||||
|
||||
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
index 9e5537506c..d5c8e98253 100644
|
||||
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void *fv_queue_thread(void *opaque)
|
||||
struct fuse_session *se = qi->virtio_dev->se;
|
||||
GThreadPool *pool;
|
||||
|
||||
- pool = g_thread_pool_new(fv_queue_worker, qi, se->thread_pool_size, TRUE,
|
||||
+ pool = g_thread_pool_new(fv_queue_worker, qi, se->thread_pool_size, FALSE,
|
||||
NULL);
|
||||
if (!pool) {
|
||||
fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: g_thread_pool_new failed\n", __func__);
|
||||
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c b/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
index 19fee60011..eb9af8265f 100644
|
||||
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
@@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ static const int syscall_whitelist[] = {
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigaction),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigprocmask),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigreturn),
|
||||
+ SCMP_SYS(sched_getattr),
|
||||
+ SCMP_SYS(sched_setattr),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(sendmsg),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(setresgid),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(setresuid),
|
||||
--
|
||||
2.28.0
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
From 04d325e86f79bd61f8fd50d45ff795aca0dd3404 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
|
||||
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
|
||||
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:32:16 -0400
|
||||
Subject: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Used glib "shared" thread pool
|
||||
|
||||
glib offers thread pools and it seems to support "exclusive" and "shared"
|
||||
thread pools.
|
||||
|
||||
https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Thread-Pools.html#g-thread-pool-new
|
||||
|
||||
Currently we use "exlusive" thread pools but its performance seems to be
|
||||
poor. I tried using "shared" thread pools and performance seems much
|
||||
better. I posted performance results here.
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00080.html
|
||||
|
||||
So lets switch to shared thread pools. We can think of making it optional
|
||||
once somebody can show in what cases exclusive thread pools offer better
|
||||
results. For now, my simple performance tests across the board see
|
||||
better results with shared thread pools.
|
||||
|
||||
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
|
||||
Message-Id: <20200921213216.GE13362@redhat.com>
|
||||
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
|
||||
Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
|
||||
With seccomp fix from Miklos
|
||||
---
|
||||
tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 2 +-
|
||||
tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c | 2 ++
|
||||
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
|
||||
|
||||
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
index 9e5537506c..d5c8e98253 100644
|
||||
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
|
||||
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void *fv_queue_thread(void *opaque)
|
||||
struct fuse_session *se = qi->virtio_dev->se;
|
||||
GThreadPool *pool;
|
||||
|
||||
- pool = g_thread_pool_new(fv_queue_worker, qi, se->thread_pool_size, TRUE,
|
||||
+ pool = g_thread_pool_new(fv_queue_worker, qi, se->thread_pool_size, FALSE,
|
||||
NULL);
|
||||
if (!pool) {
|
||||
fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: g_thread_pool_new failed\n", __func__);
|
||||
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c b/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
index 19fee60011..eb9af8265f 100644
|
||||
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/seccomp.c
|
||||
@@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ static const int syscall_whitelist[] = {
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigaction),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigprocmask),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(rt_sigreturn),
|
||||
+ SCMP_SYS(sched_getattr),
|
||||
+ SCMP_SYS(sched_setattr),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(sendmsg),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(setresgid),
|
||||
SCMP_SYS(setresuid),
|
||||
--
|
||||
2.28.0
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user