From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D08C433EF for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235958AbhLUPXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:23:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58790 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239272AbhLUPX3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:23:29 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB46C06173F for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:23:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id x6so17963204iol.13 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:23:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6FUR/xMfBgWNOlI761SjlW71jJ8s0kHZC8U6M761bOg=; b=Hd08yFjxIWbZOHBLHfpLxN8DlmXep/BaBpuLY4Kea2fKru7rMV5DDdJ4X2uuDqlpIQ zfdS0jAWmmtgBvFL2p/zkKPuUkK7Va06d4NknOkRPHMeuOwAXG99DKMvY4TuCM4Knjeh iGvDVCedu/jm4QTXqmMeptpTafJmP25QEhjMs3kRTiUeB7taVH9/os+Mj42kmtavU371 fc13EVPNIVtuJvul4NwPrR/w0gdrS9ga/xDFJJ2yGO3WMSHOSAZQqsJTfhaNbdLI22U+ yxUArrYvLrwNJLFT6ER88wtxV7+Gd0q/OtzYe9rKBRQ8vWi2etIqWdGPzhazyf+tO8WN Zhxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6FUR/xMfBgWNOlI761SjlW71jJ8s0kHZC8U6M761bOg=; b=3ZbhTOXDx9Y1wuV3S/wssNl11qVLCQrUOwpUQLBXzlAtAgh69fdorAkDZZm6eBidbM vV2lU//xTQkbN/QeuWov8NURR1KpPhn8sDRTgp1UQK7DeS2hsn4b9ycVZTiNspSlYFfR mm3yLDKuniacmRNgJlEk1gQrCvLAn2q1H2XLllNRxuGFfbi/bLmeFuqljvDJknvsAqS3 L6t7SjclQGIx6z3PkSFPn5PKHK6f2ouyO5Dc0GLaQ3rB6jIGMqaolmYnUh/a1D09ksGX WAIr3QuQ2HSey7YwQ7sbU8LqMX5smu+Emp9xcmYthaWlBoB537ydULbGPD2yIjkh/3B4 u4Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LvxT8FvroD6yJ83kY0uuFEZZ1T13//gi3yJFO3vq8AIyIhRLi psDUdMAXX3T7sk+T0S2lSw39Y3AFQ6wOyQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYTnlvdF1UgEDJCEOBrikepGdU42ots35/h55IiXo134G83YkzY1e8Gohg7nhbz+9fD7JOrg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:26d3:: with SMTP id g19mr1845715ioo.100.1640100208398; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.30] ([207.135.234.126]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm229993ilq.21.2021.12.21.07.23.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:23:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] nvme: add support for mq_ops->queue_rqs() To: Max Gurtovoy , Christoph Hellwig Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Hannes Reinecke , Oren Duer References: <20211215162421.14896-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <2adafc43-3860-d9f0-9cb5-ca3bf9a27109@nvidia.com> <06ab52e6-47b7-6010-524c-45bb73fbfabc@kernel.dk> <9b4202b4-192a-6611-922e-0b837e2b97c3@nvidia.com> <5f249c03-5cb2-9978-cd2c-669c0594d1c0@kernel.dk> <3474493a-a04d-528c-7565-f75db5205074@nvidia.com> <87e3a197-e8f7-d8d6-85b6-ce05bf1f35cd@kernel.dk> <5ee0e257-651a-ec44-7ca3-479438a737fb@nvidia.com> <01f9ce91-d998-c823-f2f2-de457625021e@nvidia.com> <573bbe72-d232-6063-dd34-2e12d8374594@kernel.dk> <4fbf2936-8e4c-9c04-e5a9-10eae387b562@nvidia.com> <6ca82929-7e70-be15-dcbb-1e68a02dd933@kernel.dk> <92c5065e-dc2a-9e3f-404a-64c6e22624b7@kernel.dk> <5b001e0f-cec0-112d-533a-d71684eb1d2e@nvidia.com> <7cbaa97b-4d79-82ca-d037-7d47f089ba8a@kernel.dk> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:23:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 12/21/21 3:20 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 12/20/2021 8:58 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 12/20/21 11:48 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>> On 12/20/2021 6:34 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 12/20/21 8:29 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 12/20/21 3:11 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/19/2021 4:48 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/19/21 5:14 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 7:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:57 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 6:36 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:34 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:19 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 6:05 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:00 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 5:48 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 6:06 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 11:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:24:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + spin_lock(&nvmeq->sq_lock); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + while (!rq_list_empty(*rqlist)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct request *req = rq_list_pop(rqlist); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct nvme_iod *iod = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(req); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + memcpy(nvmeq->sq_cmds + (nvmeq->sq_tail << nvmeq->sqes), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + absolute_pointer(&iod->cmd), sizeof(iod->cmd)); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (++nvmeq->sq_tail == nvmeq->q_depth) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + nvmeq->sq_tail = 0; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this doesn't even use the new helper added in patch 2? I think this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should call nvme_sq_copy_cmd(). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also noticed that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So need to decide if to open code it or use the helper function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inline helper sounds reasonable if you have 3 places that will use it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes agree, that's been my stance too :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest looks identical to the incremental patch I posted, so I guess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the performance degration measured on the first try was a measurement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving 1 dbr for a batch of N commands sounds good idea. Also for RDMA host. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But how do you moderate it ? what is the batch_sz <--> time_to_wait >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The batching is naturally limited at BLK_MAX_REQUEST_COUNT, which is 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in total. I do agree that if we ever made it much larger, then we might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to cap it differently. But 32 seems like a pretty reasonable number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get enough gain from the batching done in various areas, while still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not making it so large that we have a potential latency issue. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch count is already used consistently for other items too (like tag >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation), so it's not specific to just this one case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm saying that the you can wait to the batch_max_count too long and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be efficient from latency POV. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it's better to limit the block layar to wait for the first to come: x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usecs or batch_max_count before issue queue_rqs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no waiting specifically for this, it's just based on the plug. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just won't do more than 32 in that plug. This is really just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of the plugging, and if that should be limited based on "max of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 32 or xx time", then that should be done there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in general I think it's saner and enough to just limit the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size. If we spend more than xx usec building up the plug list, we're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing something horribly wrong. That really should not happen with 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests, and we'll never eg wait on requests if we're out of tags. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will result in a plug flush to begin with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware of the plug. I hope to get to it soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My concern is if the user application submitted only 28 requests and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you'll wait forever ? or for very long time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess not, but I'm asking how do you know how to batch and when to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop in case 32 commands won't arrive anytime soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The plug is in the stack of the task, so that condition can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen. If the application originally asks for 32 but then only submits >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28, then once that last one is submitted the plug is flushed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are issued. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I'm running fio with --iodepth=28 what will plug do ? send batches >>>>>>>>>>>>> of 28 ? or 1 by 1 ? >>>>>>>>>>>> --iodepth just controls the overall depth, the batch submit count >>>>>>>>>>>> dictates what happens further down. If you run queue depth 28 and submit >>>>>>>>>>>> one at the time, then you'll get one at the time further down too. Hence >>>>>>>>>>>> the batching is directly driven by what the application is already >>>>>>>>>>>> doing. >>>>>>>>>>> I see. Thanks for the explanation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So it works only for io_uring based applications ? >>>>>>>>>> It's only enabled for io_uring right now, but it's generically available >>>>>>>>>> for anyone that wants to use it... Would be trivial to do for aio, and >>>>>>>>>> other spots that currently use blk_start_plug() and has an idea of how >>>>>>>>>> many IOs will be submitted >>>>>>>>> Can you please share an example application (or is it fio patches) that >>>>>>>>> can submit batches ? The same that was used to test this patchset is >>>>>>>>> fine too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to test it with our NVMe SNAP controllers and also to >>>>>>>>> develop NVMe/RDMA queue_rqs code and test the perf with it. >>>>>>>> You should just be able to use iodepth_batch with fio. For my peak >>>>>>>> testing, I use t/io_uring from the fio repo. By default, it'll run QD of >>>>>>>> and do batches of 32 for complete and submit. You can just run: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> t/io_uring >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> maybe adding -p0 for IRQ driven rather than polled IO. >>>>>>> I used your block/for-next branch and implemented queue_rqs in NVMe/RDMA >>>>>>> but it was never called using the t/io_uring test nor fio with >>>>>>> iodepth_batch=32 flag with io_uring engine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any idea what might be the issue ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I installed fio from sources.. >>>>>> The two main restrictions right now are a scheduler and shared tags, are >>>>>> you using any of those? >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> But maybe I'm missing the .commit_rqs callback. is it mandatory for this >>>>> feature ? >>>> I've only tested with nvme pci which does have it, but I don't think so. >>>> Unless there's some check somewhere that makes it necessary. Can you >>>> share the patch you're currently using on top? >>> The attached POC patches apply cleanly on block/for-next branch >> Looks reasonable to me from a quick glance. Not sure why you're not >> seeing it hit, maybe try and instrument >> block/blk-mq.c:blk_mq_flush_plug_list() and find out why it isn't being >> called? As mentioned, no elevator or shared tags, should work for >> anything else basically. > > Yes. I saw that the blk layer converted the original non-shared tagset > of NVMe/RDMA to a shared one because of the nvmf connect request queue > that is using the same tagset (uses only the reserved tag). > > So I guess this is the reason that the I couldn't reach the new code of > queue_rqs. > > The question is how we can overcome this ? Do we need to mark it shared for just the reserved tags? I wouldn't think so... -- Jens Axboe