* [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
@ 2021-10-31 10:49 Hao Xu
2021-10-31 13:03 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hao Xu @ 2021-10-31 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
wqe->lock is abused, it now protects acct->work_list, hash stuff,
nr_workers, wqe->free_list and so on. Lets first get the work_list out
of the wqe-lock mess by introduce a specific lock for work list. This
is the first step to solve the huge contension between work insertion
and work consumption.
good thing:
- split locking for bound and unbound work list
- reduce contension between work_list visit and (worker's)free_list.
For the hash stuff, since there won't be a work with same file in both
bound and unbound work list, thus they won't visit same hash entry. it
works well to use the new lock to protect hash stuff.
Results:
set max_unbound_worker = 4, test with echo-server:
nice -n -15 ./io_uring_echo_server -p 8081 -f -n 1000 -l 16
(-n connection, -l workload)
before this patch:
Samples: 2M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 1239982111074
Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
28.59% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
8.89% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
6.20% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
2.45% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
2.36% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
2.29% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_worker_handle_work
1.29% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_enqueue
1.06% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
1.06% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
1.03% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __schedule
0.99% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] tcp_sendmsg_locked
with this patch:
Samples: 1M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 708446691943
Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
16.86% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
9.10% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
4.53% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
2.87% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_worker_handle_work
2.57% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
2.56% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
1.82% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
1.33% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
1.26% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] try_to_wake_up
spin_lock failure from 25.59% + 8.89% = 34.48% to 16.86% + 4.53% = 21.39%
TPS is similar, while cpu usage is from almost 400% to 350% (master
thread + io_workers)
Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>
---
fs/io-wq.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
index fe6b2abcaa49..949573f947de 100644
--- a/fs/io-wq.c
+++ b/fs/io-wq.c
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct io_wqe_acct {
unsigned max_workers;
int index;
atomic_t nr_running;
+ raw_spinlock_t lock;
struct io_wq_work_list work_list;
unsigned long flags;
};
@@ -221,12 +222,13 @@ static void io_worker_exit(struct io_worker *worker)
if (worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_FREE)
hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&worker->nulls_node);
list_del_rcu(&worker->all_list);
- preempt_disable();
+ raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
+
io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
worker->flags = 0;
+ preempt_disable();
current->flags &= ~PF_IO_WORKER;
preempt_enable();
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
kfree_rcu(worker, rcu);
io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
@@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
return;
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) && io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
}
}
@@ -479,9 +485,9 @@ static struct io_wq_work *io_get_next_work(struct io_wqe_acct *acct,
* work being added and clearing the stalled bit.
*/
set_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
io_wait_on_hash(wqe, stall_hash);
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
}
return NULL;
@@ -531,12 +537,14 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct io_worker *worker)
* clear the stalled flag.
*/
work = io_get_next_work(acct, worker);
- if (work)
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
+ if (work) {
+ raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
__io_worker_busy(wqe, worker, work);
-
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
- if (!work)
+ raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
+ } else {
break;
+ }
io_assign_current_work(worker, work);
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
@@ -567,15 +575,15 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct io_worker *worker)
clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
if (wq_has_sleeper(&wq->hash->wait))
wake_up(&wq->hash->wait);
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
/* skip unnecessary unlock-lock wqe->lock */
if (!work)
goto get_next;
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
}
} while (work);
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
} while (1);
}
@@ -598,11 +606,14 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
loop:
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
if (io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
io_worker_handle_work(worker);
goto loop;
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
}
+ raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
/* timed out, exit unless we're the last worker */
if (last_timeout && acct->nr_workers > 1) {
acct->nr_workers--;
@@ -627,7 +638,7 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
}
if (test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state)) {
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
io_worker_handle_work(worker);
}
@@ -668,10 +679,7 @@ void io_wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *tsk)
return;
worker->flags &= ~IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING;
-
- raw_spin_lock(&worker->wqe->lock);
io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
- raw_spin_unlock(&worker->wqe->lock);
}
static void io_init_new_worker(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_worker *worker,
@@ -734,10 +742,12 @@ static void create_worker_cont(struct callback_head *cb)
.cancel_all = true,
};
+ raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
while (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ ;
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
}
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
kfree(worker);
return;
@@ -883,10 +893,12 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work)
return;
}
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
io_wqe_insert_work(wqe, work);
clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
rcu_read_lock();
do_create = !io_wqe_activate_free_worker(wqe, acct);
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -910,8 +922,7 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work)
.cancel_all = false,
};
- if (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
+ io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match);
}
raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
}
@@ -982,17 +993,19 @@ static bool io_acct_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
struct io_wq_work_node *node, *prev;
struct io_wq_work *work;
+ raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
wq_list_for_each(node, prev, &acct->work_list) {
work = container_of(node, struct io_wq_work, list);
if (!match->fn(work, match->data))
continue;
io_wqe_remove_pending(wqe, work, prev);
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
io_run_cancel(work, wqe);
match->nr_pending++;
/* not safe to continue after unlock */
return true;
}
+ raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
return false;
}
@@ -1002,7 +1015,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
{
int i;
retry:
- raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_get_acct(wqe, i == 0);
@@ -1012,7 +1024,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
return;
}
}
- raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
}
static void io_wqe_cancel_running_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
@@ -1126,6 +1137,8 @@ struct io_wq *io_wq_create(unsigned bounded, struct io_wq_data *data)
wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].max_workers = bounded;
wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].max_workers =
task_rlimit(current, RLIMIT_NPROC);
+ raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wqe->wait.entry);
wqe->wait.func = io_wqe_hash_wake;
for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
--
2.24.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-10-31 10:49 [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock Hao Xu
@ 2021-10-31 13:03 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 12:17 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hao Xu @ 2021-10-31 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
在 2021/10/31 下午6:49, Hao Xu 写道:
> wqe->lock is abused, it now protects acct->work_list, hash stuff,
> nr_workers, wqe->free_list and so on. Lets first get the work_list out
> of the wqe-lock mess by introduce a specific lock for work list. This
> is the first step to solve the huge contension between work insertion
> and work consumption.
> good thing:
> - split locking for bound and unbound work list
> - reduce contension between work_list visit and (worker's)free_list.
^ not reduce, should be remove
>
> For the hash stuff, since there won't be a work with same file in both
> bound and unbound work list, thus they won't visit same hash entry. it
> works well to use the new lock to protect hash stuff.
>
> Results:
> set max_unbound_worker = 4, test with echo-server:
> nice -n -15 ./io_uring_echo_server -p 8081 -f -n 1000 -l 16
> (-n connection, -l workload)
> before this patch:
> Samples: 2M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 1239982111074
> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> 28.59% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 8.89% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 6.20% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 2.45% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
> 2.36% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 2.29% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_worker_handle_work
> 1.29% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_enqueue
> 1.06% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
> 1.06% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 1.03% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __schedule
> 0.99% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] tcp_sendmsg_locked
>
> with this patch:
> Samples: 1M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 708446691943
> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> 16.86% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
> 9.10% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 4.53% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
> 2.87% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_worker_handle_work
> 2.57% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 2.56% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
> 1.82% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 1.33% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
> 1.26% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] try_to_wake_up
>
> spin_lock failure from 25.59% + 8.89% = 34.48% to 16.86% + 4.53% = 21.39%
> TPS is similar, while cpu usage is from almost 400% to 350% (master
> thread + io_workers)
>
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> fs/io-wq.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
> index fe6b2abcaa49..949573f947de 100644
> --- a/fs/io-wq.c
> +++ b/fs/io-wq.c
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct io_wqe_acct {
> unsigned max_workers;
> int index;
> atomic_t nr_running;
> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
> struct io_wq_work_list work_list;
> unsigned long flags;
> };
> @@ -221,12 +222,13 @@ static void io_worker_exit(struct io_worker *worker)
> if (worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_FREE)
> hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&worker->nulls_node);
> list_del_rcu(&worker->all_list);
> - preempt_disable();
> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> +
> io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
> worker->flags = 0;
> + preempt_disable();
> current->flags &= ~PF_IO_WORKER;
> preempt_enable();
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>
> kfree_rcu(worker, rcu);
> io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
> @@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
> return;
>
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) && io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
> + } else {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -479,9 +485,9 @@ static struct io_wq_work *io_get_next_work(struct io_wqe_acct *acct,
> * work being added and clearing the stalled bit.
> */
> set_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> io_wait_on_hash(wqe, stall_hash);
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> }
>
> return NULL;
> @@ -531,12 +537,14 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct io_worker *worker)
> * clear the stalled flag.
> */
> work = io_get_next_work(acct, worker);
> - if (work)
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> + if (work) {
> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> __io_worker_busy(wqe, worker, work);
> -
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> - if (!work)
> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> + } else {
> break;
> + }
> io_assign_current_work(worker, work);
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> @@ -567,15 +575,15 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct io_worker *worker)
> clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
> if (wq_has_sleeper(&wq->hash->wait))
> wake_up(&wq->hash->wait);
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> /* skip unnecessary unlock-lock wqe->lock */
> if (!work)
> goto get_next;
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> }
> } while (work);
>
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> } while (1);
> }
>
> @@ -598,11 +606,14 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> loop:
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> if (io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
> io_worker_handle_work(worker);
> goto loop;
> + } else {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> }
> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> /* timed out, exit unless we're the last worker */
> if (last_timeout && acct->nr_workers > 1) {
> acct->nr_workers--;
> @@ -627,7 +638,7 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
> }
>
> if (test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state)) {
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> io_worker_handle_work(worker);
> }
>
> @@ -668,10 +679,7 @@ void io_wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *tsk)
> return;
>
> worker->flags &= ~IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING;
> -
> - raw_spin_lock(&worker->wqe->lock);
> io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
> - raw_spin_unlock(&worker->wqe->lock);
> }
>
> static void io_init_new_worker(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_worker *worker,
> @@ -734,10 +742,12 @@ static void create_worker_cont(struct callback_head *cb)
> .cancel_all = true,
> };
>
> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> while (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + ;
> + } else {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> }
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
> kfree(worker);
> return;
> @@ -883,10 +893,12 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work)
> return;
> }
>
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> io_wqe_insert_work(wqe, work);
> clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>
> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> rcu_read_lock();
> do_create = !io_wqe_activate_free_worker(wqe, acct);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -910,8 +922,7 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work)
> .cancel_all = false,
> };
>
> - if (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> + io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match);
> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> }
> @@ -982,17 +993,19 @@ static bool io_acct_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
> struct io_wq_work_node *node, *prev;
> struct io_wq_work *work;
>
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> wq_list_for_each(node, prev, &acct->work_list) {
> work = container_of(node, struct io_wq_work, list);
> if (!match->fn(work, match->data))
> continue;
> io_wqe_remove_pending(wqe, work, prev);
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> io_run_cancel(work, wqe);
> match->nr_pending++;
> /* not safe to continue after unlock */
> return true;
> }
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>
> return false;
> }
> @@ -1002,7 +1015,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
> {
> int i;
> retry:
> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
> for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
> struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_get_acct(wqe, i == 0);
>
> @@ -1012,7 +1024,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
> return;
> }
> }
> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
> }
>
> static void io_wqe_cancel_running_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
> @@ -1126,6 +1137,8 @@ struct io_wq *io_wq_create(unsigned bounded, struct io_wq_data *data)
> wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].max_workers = bounded;
> wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].max_workers =
> task_rlimit(current, RLIMIT_NPROC);
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].lock);
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wqe->wait.entry);
> wqe->wait.func = io_wqe_hash_wake;
> for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-10-31 13:03 ` Hao Xu
@ 2021-11-03 12:17 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 12:22 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hao Xu @ 2021-11-03 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
ping this one.
在 2021/10/31 下午9:03, Hao Xu 写道:
> 在 2021/10/31 下午6:49, Hao Xu 写道:
>> wqe->lock is abused, it now protects acct->work_list, hash stuff,
>> nr_workers, wqe->free_list and so on. Lets first get the work_list out
>> of the wqe-lock mess by introduce a specific lock for work list. This
>> is the first step to solve the huge contension between work insertion
>> and work consumption.
>> good thing:
>> - split locking for bound and unbound work list
>> - reduce contension between work_list visit and (worker's)free_list.
> ^ not reduce, should be remove
>>
>> For the hash stuff, since there won't be a work with same file in both
>> bound and unbound work list, thus they won't visit same hash entry. it
>> works well to use the new lock to protect hash stuff.
>>
>> Results:
>> set max_unbound_worker = 4, test with echo-server:
>> nice -n -15 ./io_uring_echo_server -p 8081 -f -n 1000 -l 16
>> (-n connection, -l workload)
>> before this patch:
>> Samples: 2M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 1239982111074
>> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
>> 28.59% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>> 8.89% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>> 6.20% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 2.45% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
>> 2.36% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 2.29% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> io_worker_handle_work
>> 1.29% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_enqueue
>> 1.06% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
>> 1.06% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1.03% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __schedule
>> 0.99% iou-wrk-10021 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] tcp_sendmsg_locked
>>
>> with this patch:
>> Samples: 1M of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 708446691943
>> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
>> 16.86% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
>> 9.10% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 4.53% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpat
>> 2.87% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> io_worker_handle_work
>> 2.57% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k]
>> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 2.56% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_prep_async_work
>> 1.82% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>> 1.33% iou-wrk-10893 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] io_wqe_worker
>> 1.26% io_uring_echo_s [kernel.vmlinux] [k] try_to_wake_up
>>
>> spin_lock failure from 25.59% + 8.89% = 34.48% to 16.86% + 4.53% =
>> 21.39%
>> TPS is similar, while cpu usage is from almost 400% to 350% (master
>> thread + io_workers)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> fs/io-wq.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
>> index fe6b2abcaa49..949573f947de 100644
>> --- a/fs/io-wq.c
>> +++ b/fs/io-wq.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct io_wqe_acct {
>> unsigned max_workers;
>> int index;
>> atomic_t nr_running;
>> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
>> struct io_wq_work_list work_list;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> };
>> @@ -221,12 +222,13 @@ static void io_worker_exit(struct io_worker
>> *worker)
>> if (worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_FREE)
>> hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&worker->nulls_node);
>> list_del_rcu(&worker->all_list);
>> - preempt_disable();
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> +
>> io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
>> worker->flags = 0;
>> + preempt_disable();
>> current->flags &= ~PF_IO_WORKER;
>> preempt_enable();
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> kfree_rcu(worker, rcu);
>> io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
>> @@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker
>> *worker)
>> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
>> return;
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) &&
>> io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
>> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
>> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
>> + } else {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -479,9 +485,9 @@ static struct io_wq_work *io_get_next_work(struct
>> io_wqe_acct *acct,
>> * work being added and clearing the stalled bit.
>> */
>> set_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> io_wait_on_hash(wqe, stall_hash);
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> }
>> return NULL;
>> @@ -531,12 +537,14 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct
>> io_worker *worker)
>> * clear the stalled flag.
>> */
>> work = io_get_next_work(acct, worker);
>> - if (work)
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> + if (work) {
>> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> __io_worker_busy(wqe, worker, work);
>> -
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> - if (!work)
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> + } else {
>> break;
>> + }
>> io_assign_current_work(worker, work);
>> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> @@ -567,15 +575,15 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct
>> io_worker *worker)
>> clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
>> if (wq_has_sleeper(&wq->hash->wait))
>> wake_up(&wq->hash->wait);
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> /* skip unnecessary unlock-lock wqe->lock */
>> if (!work)
>> goto get_next;
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> }
>> } while (work);
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> } while (1);
>> }
>> @@ -598,11 +606,14 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
>> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>> loop:
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> if (io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
>> io_worker_handle_work(worker);
>> goto loop;
>> + } else {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> }
>> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> /* timed out, exit unless we're the last worker */
>> if (last_timeout && acct->nr_workers > 1) {
>> acct->nr_workers--;
>> @@ -627,7 +638,7 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
>> }
>> if (test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state)) {
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> io_worker_handle_work(worker);
>> }
>> @@ -668,10 +679,7 @@ void io_wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> return;
>> worker->flags &= ~IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING;
>> -
>> - raw_spin_lock(&worker->wqe->lock);
>> io_wqe_dec_running(worker);
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&worker->wqe->lock);
>> }
>> static void io_init_new_worker(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_worker
>> *worker,
>> @@ -734,10 +742,12 @@ static void create_worker_cont(struct
>> callback_head *cb)
>> .cancel_all = true,
>> };
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> while (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + ;
>> + } else {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> }
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> io_worker_ref_put(wqe->wq);
>> kfree(worker);
>> return;
>> @@ -883,10 +893,12 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe,
>> struct io_wq_work *work)
>> return;
>> }
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> io_wqe_insert_work(wqe, work);
>> clear_bit(IO_ACCT_STALLED_BIT, &acct->flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> do_create = !io_wqe_activate_free_worker(wqe, acct);
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> @@ -910,8 +922,7 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe,
>> struct io_wq_work *work)
>> .cancel_all = false,
>> };
>> - if (io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match))
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> + io_acct_cancel_pending_work(wqe, acct, &match);
>> }
>> raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> }
>> @@ -982,17 +993,19 @@ static bool io_acct_cancel_pending_work(struct
>> io_wqe *wqe,
>> struct io_wq_work_node *node, *prev;
>> struct io_wq_work *work;
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> wq_list_for_each(node, prev, &acct->work_list) {
>> work = container_of(node, struct io_wq_work, list);
>> if (!match->fn(work, match->data))
>> continue;
>> io_wqe_remove_pending(wqe, work, prev);
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> io_run_cancel(work, wqe);
>> match->nr_pending++;
>> /* not safe to continue after unlock */
>> return true;
>> }
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> return false;
>> }
>> @@ -1002,7 +1015,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct
>> io_wqe *wqe,
>> {
>> int i;
>> retry:
>> - raw_spin_lock(&wqe->lock);
>> for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
>> struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_get_acct(wqe, i == 0);
>> @@ -1012,7 +1024,6 @@ static void io_wqe_cancel_pending_work(struct
>> io_wqe *wqe,
>> return;
>> }
>> }
>> - raw_spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>> }
>> static void io_wqe_cancel_running_work(struct io_wqe *wqe,
>> @@ -1126,6 +1137,8 @@ struct io_wq *io_wq_create(unsigned bounded,
>> struct io_wq_data *data)
>> wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].max_workers = bounded;
>> wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].max_workers =
>> task_rlimit(current, RLIMIT_NPROC);
>> + raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND].lock);
>> + raw_spin_lock_init(&wqe->acct[IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND].lock);
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wqe->wait.entry);
>> wqe->wait.func = io_wqe_hash_wake;
>> for (i = 0; i < IO_WQ_ACCT_NR; i++) {
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-11-03 12:17 ` Hao Xu
@ 2021-11-03 12:22 ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-03 12:53 ` Hao Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2021-11-03 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hao Xu; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
On 11/3/21 6:17 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> ping this one.
I'll take a look at it, we do have some locking concerns here that would
be nice to alleviate. But given that the patch came in right before the
merge window, probably too late for 5.16 and I put it on the backburner
a bit to tend to other items that were more pressing.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-11-03 12:22 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2021-11-03 12:53 ` Hao Xu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hao Xu @ 2021-11-03 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
在 2021/11/3 下午8:22, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 11/3/21 6:17 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> ping this one.
>
> I'll take a look at it, we do have some locking concerns here that would
> be nice to alleviate. But given that the patch came in right before the
> merge window, probably too late for 5.16 and I put it on the backburner
> a bit to tend to other items that were more pressing.
>
Gotcha. Thanks, Jens.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-10-31 10:49 [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock Hao Xu
2021-10-31 13:03 ` Hao Xu
@ 2021-11-03 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-04 11:35 ` Hao Xu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2021-11-03 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hao Xu; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
On 10/31/21 4:49 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> @@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
> return;
>
> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) && io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
> + } else {
> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> }
> }
I think this may be more readable as:
static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
__must_hold(wqe->lock)
{
struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_wqe_get_acct(worker);
struct io_wqe *wqe = worker->wqe;
if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
return;
if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running))
return;
raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
if (!io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
return;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
}
?
Patch looks pretty sane to me, but there's a lot of lock shuffling going
on for it. Like in io_worker_handle_work(), and particularly in
io_worker_handle_work(). I think it'd be worthwhile to spend some time
to see if that could be improved. These days, lock contention is more
about frequency of lock grabbing rather than hold time. Maybe clean
nesting of wqe->lock -> acct->lock (which would be natural) can help
that?
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-11-03 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2021-11-04 11:35 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-04 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hao Xu @ 2021-11-04 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
在 2021/11/4 上午3:10, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 10/31/21 4:49 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> @@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
>> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
>> return;
>>
>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) && io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
>> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
>> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
>> + } else {
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> }
>> }
>
> I think this may be more readable as:
>
> static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
> __must_hold(wqe->lock)
> {
> struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_wqe_get_acct(worker);
> struct io_wqe *wqe = worker->wqe;
>
> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
> return;
> if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running))
> return;
>
> raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
> if (!io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
> raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> return;
> }
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
> }
>
> ?
>
> Patch looks pretty sane to me, but there's a lot of lock shuffling going
> on for it. Like in io_worker_handle_work(), and particularly in
> io_worker_handle_work(). I think it'd be worthwhile to spend some time
> to see if that could be improved. These days, lock contention is more
> about frequency of lock grabbing rather than hold time. Maybe clean
> nesting of wqe->lock -> acct->lock (which would be natural) can help
> that?
Sure, I'm working on reduce the lock contension further, will
update it and send the whole patchset later.
Regards,
Hao
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock
2021-11-04 11:35 ` Hao Xu
@ 2021-11-04 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2021-11-04 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hao Xu; +Cc: io-uring, Pavel Begunkov, Joseph Qi
On 11/4/21 5:35 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> 在 2021/11/4 上午3:10, Jens Axboe 写道:
>> On 10/31/21 4:49 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>> @@ -380,10 +382,14 @@ static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
>>> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> + raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running) && io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>>> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
>>> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
>>> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
>>> + } else {
>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> I think this may be more readable as:
>>
>> static void io_wqe_dec_running(struct io_worker *worker)
>> __must_hold(wqe->lock)
>> {
>> struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_wqe_get_acct(worker);
>> struct io_wqe *wqe = worker->wqe;
>>
>> if (!(worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_UP))
>> return;
>> if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&acct->nr_running))
>> return;
>>
>> raw_spin_lock(&acct->lock);
>> if (!io_acct_run_queue(acct)) {
>> raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> raw_spin_unlock(&acct->lock);
>> atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
>> atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
>> io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cb);
>> }
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Patch looks pretty sane to me, but there's a lot of lock shuffling going
>> on for it. Like in io_worker_handle_work(), and particularly in
>> io_worker_handle_work(). I think it'd be worthwhile to spend some time
>> to see if that could be improved. These days, lock contention is more
>> about frequency of lock grabbing rather than hold time. Maybe clean
>> nesting of wqe->lock -> acct->lock (which would be natural) can help
>> that?
> Sure, I'm working on reduce the lock contension further, will
> update it and send the whole patchset later.
Sounds good, thanks!
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-11-04 14:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-31 10:49 [RFC] io-wq: decouple work_list protection from the big wqe->lock Hao Xu
2021-10-31 13:03 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 12:17 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 12:22 ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-03 12:53 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-03 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-04 11:35 ` Hao Xu
2021-11-04 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).