From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, jasowang@redhat.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:09:05 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120904110905.GA9119@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5045D6FF.5020801@redhat.com>
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/09/2012 10:46, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >>>> +static int virtscsi_queuecommand_multi(struct Scsi_Host *sh,
> >>>> + struct scsi_cmnd *sc)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct virtio_scsi *vscsi = shost_priv(sh);
> >>>> + struct virtio_scsi_target_state *tgt = vscsi->tgt[sc->device->id];
> >>>> + unsigned long flags;
> >>>> + u32 queue_num;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /* Using an atomic_t for tgt->reqs lets the virtqueue handler
> >>>> + * decrement it without taking the spinlock.
> >>>> + */
> >
> > Above comment is not really helpful - reader can be safely assumed to
> > know what atomic_t is.
>
> Sure, the comment explains that we use an atomic because _elsewhere_ the
> tgt_lock is not held while modifying reqs.
>
> > Please delete, and replace with the text from commit log
> > that explains the heuristic used to select req_vq.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Also please add a comment near 'reqs' definition.
> > Something like "number of outstanding requests - used to detect idle
> > target".
>
> Ok.
>
> >
> >>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> >
> > Looks like this lock can be removed - req_vq is only
> > modified when target is idle and only used when it is
> > not idle.
>
> If you have two incoming requests at the same time, req_vq is also
> modified when the target is not idle; that's the point of the lock.
>
> Suppose tgt->reqs = 0 initially, and you have two processors/queues.
> Initially tgt->req_vq is queue #1. If you have this:
>
> queuecommand on CPU #0 queuecommand #2 on CPU #1
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> atomic_inc_return(...) == 1
> atomic_inc_return(...) == 2
> virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #1
> tgt->req_vq = queue #0
> virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #0
>
> then two requests are issued to different queues without a quiescent
> point in the middle.
What happens then? Does this break correctness?
> >>>> + if (atomic_inc_return(&tgt->reqs) == 1) {
> >>>> + queue_num = smp_processor_id();
> >>>> + while (unlikely(queue_num >= vscsi->num_queues))
> >>>> + queue_num -= vscsi->num_queues;
> >>>> + tgt->req_vq = &vscsi->req_vqs[queue_num];
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> >>>> + return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, tgt, sc);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +
> >
> > .....
> >
> >>>> +static int virtscsi_queuecommand_single(struct Scsi_Host *sh,
> >>>> + struct scsi_cmnd *sc)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct virtio_scsi *vscsi = shost_priv(sh);
> >>>> + struct virtio_scsi_target_state *tgt = vscsi->tgt[sc->device->id];
> >>>> +
> >>>> + atomic_inc(&tgt->reqs);
> >>>> + return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, tgt, sc);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >
> > Here, reqs is unused - why bother incrementing it?
> > A branch on completion would be cheaper IMHO.
>
> Well, I could also let tgt->reqs go negative, but it would be a bit untidy.
>
> Another alternative is to access the target's target_busy field with
> ACCESS_ONCE, and drop reqs altogether. Too tricky to do this kind of
> micro-optimization so early, though.
So keep it simple and just check a flag.
> >> virtio-scsi multiqueue has a performance benefit up to 20%
> >
> > To be fair, you could be running in single queue mode.
> > In that case extra atomics and indirection that this code
> > brings will just add overhead without benefits.
> > I don't know how significant would that be.
>
> Not measurable in my experiments.
>
> Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-04 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-28 11:54 [PATCH 0/5] Multiqueue virtio-scsi Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-28 11:54 ` [PATCH 1/5] virtio-ring: move queue_index to vring_virtqueue Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-29 7:54 ` Jason Wang
2012-09-05 23:32 ` Rusty Russell
2012-08-28 11:54 ` [PATCH 2/5] virtio: introduce an API to set affinity for a virtqueue Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-05 23:32 ` Rusty Russell
2012-08-28 11:54 ` [PATCH 3/5] virtio-scsi: allocate target pointers in a separate memory block Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-28 14:07 ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-28 14:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-28 11:54 ` [PATCH 4/5] virtio-scsi: pass struct virtio_scsi to virtqueue completion function Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-28 11:54 ` [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 2:21 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2012-09-04 6:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 8:46 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 10:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 11:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2012-09-04 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 13:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 13:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 14:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 14:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 20:11 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2012-09-05 7:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 12:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 13:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 14:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 14:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 14:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 14:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-09-04 14:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-04 15:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-08-30 7:13 ` [PATCH 0/5] Multiqueue virtio-scsi Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-08-30 14:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-08-30 15:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120904110905.GA9119@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=target-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).