* [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head @ 2021-01-23 20:10 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar Patch 2+3 were applied and then dropped by Jens due to a NOHZ+softirq related warning [0]. Turns out a successful wakeup via set_nr_if_polling() will not process any softirqs and the CPU may go back to idle. This is addressed by patch #1. smpcfd_dying_cpu() will also invoke SMP-functions calls via flush_smp_call_function_queue() but the block layer shouldn't queue anything because the CPU isn't online anymore. The two caller of flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() look fine with opening interrupts from within do_softirq(). [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1ee4b31b-350e-a9f5-4349-cfb34b89829a@kernel.dk Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-01 19:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (3 more replies) 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 4 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior send_call_function_single_ipi() may wake an idle CPU without sending an IPI. The woken up CPU will process the SMP-functions in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(). Any raised softirq from within the SMP-function call will not be processed. Should the CPU have no tasks assigned, then it will go back to idle with pending softirqs and the NOHZ will rightfully complain. Process pending softirqs on return from flush_smp_call_function_queue(). Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f4 ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()") Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c index 1b6070bf97bb0..aeb0adfa06063 100644 --- a/kernel/smp.c +++ b/kernel/smp.c @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/percpu.h> #include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/interrupt.h> #include <linux/gfp.h> #include <linux/smp.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> @@ -449,6 +450,9 @@ void flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(void) local_irq_save(flags); flush_smp_call_function_queue(true); + if (local_softirq_pending()) + do_softirq(); + local_irq_restore(flags); } -- 2.30.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-01 19:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-09 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-01 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 2021-01-23 21:10:25 [+0100], To linux-block@vger.kernel.org wrote: > send_call_function_single_ipi() may wake an idle CPU without sending an > IPI. The woken up CPU will process the SMP-functions in > flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(). Any raised softirq from within the > SMP-function call will not be processed. > Should the CPU have no tasks assigned, then it will go back to idle with > pending softirqs and the NOHZ will rightfully complain. > > Process pending softirqs on return from flush_smp_call_function_queue(). > > Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f4 ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()") > Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> A gentle ping. This isn't just a requirement for the series: rps_trigger_softirq() is invoked from smp_call_function_single_async() and raises a softirq. Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-01 19:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-09 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-02-09 11:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-10 13:53 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-17 13:17 ` tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 3 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-09 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > send_call_function_single_ipi() may wake an idle CPU without sending an > IPI. The woken up CPU will process the SMP-functions in > flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(). Any raised softirq from within the > SMP-function call will not be processed. > Should the CPU have no tasks assigned, then it will go back to idle with > pending softirqs and the NOHZ will rightfully complain. > > Process pending softirqs on return from flush_smp_call_function_queue(). > > Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f4 ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()") > Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Fair enough. I'll stick this in tip/sched/smp for Jens and merge that into tip/sched/core. Thanks! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-02-09 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-09 11:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-09 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar On 2021-02-09 11:02:10 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Fair enough. I'll stick this in tip/sched/smp for Jens and merge that > into tip/sched/core. Thank you. > Thanks! Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [tip: sched/core] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-01 19:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-09 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-02-10 13:53 ` tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-17 13:17 ` tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 3 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-10 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-tip-commits Cc: Jens Axboe, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Peter Zijlstra (Intel), x86, linux-kernel The following commit has been merged into the sched/core branch of tip: Commit-ID: 66040b2d5d41f85cb1a752a75260595344c5ec3b Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/66040b2d5d41f85cb1a752a75260595344c5ec3b Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> AuthorDate: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:10:25 +01:00 Committer: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> CommitterDate: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:44:42 +01:00 smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() send_call_function_single_ipi() may wake an idle CPU without sending an IPI. The woken up CPU will process the SMP-functions in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(). Any raised softirq from within the SMP-function call will not be processed. Should the CPU have no tasks assigned, then it will go back to idle with pending softirqs and the NOHZ will rightfully complain. Process pending softirqs on return from flush_smp_call_function_queue(). Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f4 ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()") Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210123201027.3262800-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de --- kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c index 1b6070b..aeb0adf 100644 --- a/kernel/smp.c +++ b/kernel/smp.c @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/percpu.h> #include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/interrupt.h> #include <linux/gfp.h> #include <linux/smp.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> @@ -449,6 +450,9 @@ void flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(void) local_irq_save(flags); flush_smp_call_function_queue(true); + if (local_softirq_pending()) + do_softirq(); + local_irq_restore(flags); } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [tip: sched/core] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2021-02-10 13:53 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-17 13:17 ` tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 3 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-17 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-tip-commits Cc: Jens Axboe, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Peter Zijlstra (Intel), Ingo Molnar, x86, linux-kernel The following commit has been merged into the sched/core branch of tip: Commit-ID: f9d34595ae4feed38856b88769e2ba5af22d2548 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/f9d34595ae4feed38856b88769e2ba5af22d2548 Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> AuthorDate: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:10:25 +01:00 Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> CommitterDate: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:12:42 +01:00 smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() send_call_function_single_ipi() may wake an idle CPU without sending an IPI. The woken up CPU will process the SMP-functions in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(). Any raised softirq from within the SMP-function call will not be processed. Should the CPU have no tasks assigned, then it will go back to idle with pending softirqs and the NOHZ will rightfully complain. Process pending softirqs on return from flush_smp_call_function_queue(). Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f4 ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()") Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210123201027.3262800-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de --- kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c index 1b6070b..aeb0adf 100644 --- a/kernel/smp.c +++ b/kernel/smp.c @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/percpu.h> #include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/interrupt.h> #include <linux/gfp.h> #include <linux/smp.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> @@ -449,6 +450,9 @@ void flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(void) local_irq_save(flags); flush_smp_call_function_queue(true); + if (local_softirq_pending()) + do_softirq(); + local_irq_restore(flags); } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke ` (2 more replies) 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Controllers with multiple queues have their IRQ-handelers pinned to a CPU. The core shouldn't need to complete the request on a remote CPU. Remove this case and always raise the softirq to complete the request. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- block/blk-mq.c | 14 +------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index f285a9123a8b0..90348ae518461 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -628,19 +628,7 @@ static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data) { struct request *rq = data; - /* - * For most of single queue controllers, there is only one irq vector - * for handling I/O completion, and the only irq's affinity is set - * to all possible CPUs. On most of ARCHs, this affinity means the irq - * is handled on one specific CPU. - * - * So complete I/O requests in softirq context in case of single queue - * devices to avoid degrading I/O performance due to irqsoff latency. - */ - if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues == 1) - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); - else - rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); + blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); } static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) -- 2.30.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-01-25 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:22 ` Daniel Wagner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Hannes Reinecke @ 2021-01-25 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 1/23/21 9:10 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Controllers with multiple queues have their IRQ-handelers pinned to a > CPU. The core shouldn't need to complete the request on a remote CPU. > > Remove this case and always raise the softirq to complete the request. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > --- > block/blk-mq.c | 14 +------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c > index f285a9123a8b0..90348ae518461 100644 > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > @@ -628,19 +628,7 @@ static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data) > { > struct request *rq = data; > > - /* > - * For most of single queue controllers, there is only one irq vector > - * for handling I/O completion, and the only irq's affinity is set > - * to all possible CPUs. On most of ARCHs, this affinity means the irq > - * is handled on one specific CPU. > - * > - * So complete I/O requests in softirq context in case of single queue > - * devices to avoid degrading I/O performance due to irqsoff latency. > - */ > - if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues == 1) > - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); > - else > - rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); > + blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); > } > > static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) > I don't get this. This code is about _avoiding_ having to raise a softirq if the driver exports more than one hardware queue. So where exactly does the remote CPU case come in here? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke @ 2021-01-25 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:10:16AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > I don't get this. > This code is about _avoiding_ having to raise a softirq if the driver > exports more than one hardware queue. > So where exactly does the remote CPU case come in here? __blk_mq_complete_request_remote is only called for the case where we do not completelky locally. The case that "degrades" here is where the device supports multiple queues, but less than the number of CPUs, and we bounce the completion to another CPU. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-25 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hannes Reinecke, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 2021-01-25 08:25:42 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:10:16AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > I don't get this. > > This code is about _avoiding_ having to raise a softirq if the driver > > exports more than one hardware queue. > > So where exactly does the remote CPU case come in here? > > __blk_mq_complete_request_remote is only called for the case where we > do not completelky locally. The case that "degrades" here is where > the device supports multiple queues, but less than the number of CPUs, > and we bounce the completion to another CPU. Does it really "degrade" or just use the softirq more often? The usual case is run the softirqs in irq_exit() which is just after IPI. Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 9:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Hannes Reinecke, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:30:29AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2021-01-25 08:25:42 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:10:16AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > I don't get this. > > > This code is about _avoiding_ having to raise a softirq if the driver > > > exports more than one hardware queue. > > > So where exactly does the remote CPU case come in here? > > > > __blk_mq_complete_request_remote is only called for the case where we > > do not completelky locally. The case that "degrades" here is where > > the device supports multiple queues, but less than the number of CPUs, > > and we bounce the completion to another CPU. > > Does it really "degrade" or just use the softirq more often? The usual > case is run the softirqs in irq_exit() which is just after IPI. Well, I put it in quotes because I'm not sure what the exact effect is. But we do delay these completions to the softirq now instead of hardirq context, which at least in theory increases latency. OTOH it might even have positive effects on the rest of the system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 9:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hannes Reinecke, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 2021-01-25 08:32:48 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Well, I put it in quotes because I'm not sure what the exact effect > is. But we do delay these completions to the softirq now instead of > hardirq context, which at least in theory increases latency. OTOH it > might even have positive effects on the rest of the system. The last part is/was my motivation ;) Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke @ 2021-01-25 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:22 ` Daniel Wagner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:10:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Controllers with multiple queues have their IRQ-handelers pinned to a > CPU. The core shouldn't need to complete the request on a remote CPU. > > Remove this case and always raise the softirq to complete the request. What about changing blk_mq_trigger_softirq to take a void * argument and thus removing __blk_mq_complete_request_remote entirely? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-25 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:23:03AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:10:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Controllers with multiple queues have their IRQ-handelers pinned to a > > CPU. The core shouldn't need to complete the request on a remote CPU. > > > > Remove this case and always raise the softirq to complete the request. > > What about changing blk_mq_trigger_softirq to take a void * argument > and thus removing __blk_mq_complete_request_remote entirely? I'll take this back - that change is in the way of what you do in patch 3. So this looks good as-is: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-01-25 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-27 11:22 ` Daniel Wagner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Daniel Wagner @ 2021-01-27 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:10:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Controllers with multiple queues have their IRQ-handelers pinned to a > CPU. The core shouldn't need to complete the request on a remote CPU. > > Remove this case and always raise the softirq to complete the request. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 4:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Jens Axboe 2021-02-10 14:43 ` Jens Axboe 4 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-23 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior With llist_head it is possible to avoid the locking (the irq-off region) when items are added. This makes it possible to add items on a remote CPU without additional locking. llist_add() returns true if the list was previously empty. This can be used to invoke the SMP function call / raise sofirq only if the first item was added (otherwise it is already pending). This simplifies the code a little and reduces the IRQ-off regions. blk_mq_raise_softirq() needs a preempt-disable section to ensure the request is enqueued on the same CPU as the softirq is raised. Some callers (USB-storage) invoke this path in preemptible context. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- block/blk-mq.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 90348ae518461..463de2981df8a 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ #include "blk-mq-sched.h" #include "blk-rq-qos.h" -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, blk_cpu_done); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct llist_head, blk_cpu_done); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_start(struct request_queue *q); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_fn(struct blk_stat_callback *cb); @@ -567,68 +567,29 @@ void blk_mq_end_request(struct request *rq, blk_status_t error) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_end_request); -/* - * Softirq action handler - move entries to local list and loop over them - * while passing them to the queue registered handler. - */ -static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) +static void blk_complete_reqs(struct llist_head *list) { - struct list_head *cpu_list, local_list; + struct llist_node *entry = llist_reverse_order(llist_del_all(list)); + struct request *rq, *next; - local_irq_disable(); - cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_replace_init(cpu_list, &local_list); - local_irq_enable(); - - while (!list_empty(&local_list)) { - struct request *rq; - - rq = list_entry(local_list.next, struct request, ipi_list); - list_del_init(&rq->ipi_list); + llist_for_each_entry_safe(rq, next, entry, ipi_list) rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); - } } -static void blk_mq_trigger_softirq(struct request *rq) +static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) { - struct list_head *list; - unsigned long flags; - - local_irq_save(flags); - list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_add_tail(&rq->ipi_list, list); - - /* - * If the list only contains our just added request, signal a raise of - * the softirq. If there are already entries there, someone already - * raised the irq but it hasn't run yet. - */ - if (list->next == &rq->ipi_list) - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_restore(flags); + blk_complete_reqs(this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); } static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) { - /* - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU - * and trigger a run of the softirq - */ - local_irq_disable(); - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu), - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_enable(); - + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu)); return 0; } - static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data) { - struct request *rq = data; - - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + __raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); } static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) @@ -657,6 +618,30 @@ static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) return cpu_online(rq->mq_ctx->cpu); } +static void blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(struct request *rq) +{ + struct llist_head *list; + unsigned int cpu; + + cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; + list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) { + INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); + } +} + +static void blk_mq_raise_softirq(struct request *rq) +{ + struct llist_head *list; + + preempt_disable(); + list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) + raise_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); + preempt_enable(); +} + bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) { WRITE_ONCE(rq->state, MQ_RQ_COMPLETE); @@ -669,15 +654,15 @@ bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) return false; if (blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(rq)) { - INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); - smp_call_function_single_async(rq->mq_ctx->cpu, &rq->csd); - } else { - if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues > 1) - return false; - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(rq); + return true; } - return true; + if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues == 1) { + blk_mq_raise_softirq(rq); + return true; + } + return false; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_complete_request_remote); @@ -3892,7 +3877,7 @@ static int __init blk_mq_init(void) int i; for_each_possible_cpu(i) - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); + init_llist_head(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); open_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ, blk_done_softirq); cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_BLOCK_SOFTIRQ_DEAD, diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h index f94ee3089e015..89a444c5a5833 100644 --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ struct request { */ union { struct hlist_node hash; /* merge hash */ - struct list_head ipi_list; + struct llist_node ipi_list; }; /* -- 2.30.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar > +static void blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(struct request *rq) > +{ > + struct llist_head *list; > + unsigned int cpu; > + > + cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; > + list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); > + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) { > + INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); > + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); > + } > +} Nit: it would be nice to initialize cpu and list in the declaration lines. Otherwise looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:39 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 2021-01-25 08:30:12 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > +static void blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(struct request *rq) > > +{ > > + struct llist_head *list; > > + unsigned int cpu; > > + > > + cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; > > + list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); > > + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) { > > + INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); > > + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); > > + } > > +} > > Nit: it would be nice to initialize cpu and list in the declaration > lines. Why? They get initialized later. > Otherwise looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 8:39 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 9:54 ` [PATCH 3/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:32:04AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2021-01-25 08:30:12 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > +static void blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(struct request *rq) > > > +{ > > > + struct llist_head *list; > > > + unsigned int cpu; > > > + > > > + cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; > > > + list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); > > > + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) { > > > + INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); > > > + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); > > > + } > > > +} > > > > Nit: it would be nice to initialize cpu and list in the declaration > > lines. > > Why? They get initialized later. Because: unsigned int cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; struct llist_head *list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); is a lot easier to follow than: struct llist_head *list; unsigned int cpu; cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3 v2] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-25 8:39 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 9:54 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:23 ` Daniel Wagner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar With llist_head it is possible to avoid the locking (the irq-off region) when items are added. This makes it possible to add items on a remote CPU without additional locking. llist_add() returns true if the list was previously empty. This can be used to invoke the SMP function call / raise sofirq only if the first item was added (otherwise it is already pending). This simplifies the code a little and reduces the IRQ-off regions. blk_mq_raise_softirq() needs a preempt-disable section to ensure the request is enqueued on the same CPU as the softirq is raised. Some callers (USB-storage) invoke this path in preemptible context. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- v1…v2: Move var initialisation to declaration in blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(). Suggested by hch. block/blk-mq.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++------------------------- include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 90348ae518461..8429be0d9b8dd 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ #include "blk-mq-sched.h" #include "blk-rq-qos.h" -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, blk_cpu_done); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct llist_head, blk_cpu_done); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_start(struct request_queue *q); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_fn(struct blk_stat_callback *cb); @@ -567,68 +567,29 @@ void blk_mq_end_request(struct request *rq, blk_status_t error) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_end_request); -/* - * Softirq action handler - move entries to local list and loop over them - * while passing them to the queue registered handler. - */ -static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) +static void blk_complete_reqs(struct llist_head *list) { - struct list_head *cpu_list, local_list; + struct llist_node *entry = llist_reverse_order(llist_del_all(list)); + struct request *rq, *next; - local_irq_disable(); - cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_replace_init(cpu_list, &local_list); - local_irq_enable(); - - while (!list_empty(&local_list)) { - struct request *rq; - - rq = list_entry(local_list.next, struct request, ipi_list); - list_del_init(&rq->ipi_list); + llist_for_each_entry_safe(rq, next, entry, ipi_list) rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); - } } -static void blk_mq_trigger_softirq(struct request *rq) +static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) { - struct list_head *list; - unsigned long flags; - - local_irq_save(flags); - list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_add_tail(&rq->ipi_list, list); - - /* - * If the list only contains our just added request, signal a raise of - * the softirq. If there are already entries there, someone already - * raised the irq but it hasn't run yet. - */ - if (list->next == &rq->ipi_list) - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_restore(flags); + blk_complete_reqs(this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); } static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) { - /* - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU - * and trigger a run of the softirq - */ - local_irq_disable(); - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu), - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_enable(); - + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu)); return 0; } - static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data) { - struct request *rq = data; - - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + __raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); } static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) @@ -657,6 +618,28 @@ static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) return cpu_online(rq->mq_ctx->cpu); } +static void blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(struct request *rq) +{ + unsigned int cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; + struct llist_head *list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); + + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) { + INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); + } +} + +static void blk_mq_raise_softirq(struct request *rq) +{ + struct llist_head *list; + + preempt_disable(); + list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, list)) + raise_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); + preempt_enable(); +} + bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) { WRITE_ONCE(rq->state, MQ_RQ_COMPLETE); @@ -669,15 +652,15 @@ bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) return false; if (blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(rq)) { - INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq); - smp_call_function_single_async(rq->mq_ctx->cpu, &rq->csd); - } else { - if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues > 1) - return false; - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + blk_mq_complete_send_ipi(rq); + return true; } - return true; + if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues == 1) { + blk_mq_raise_softirq(rq); + return true; + } + return false; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_complete_request_remote); @@ -3892,7 +3875,7 @@ static int __init blk_mq_init(void) int i; for_each_possible_cpu(i) - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); + init_llist_head(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); open_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ, blk_done_softirq); cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_BLOCK_SOFTIRQ_DEAD, diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h index f94ee3089e015..89a444c5a5833 100644 --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ struct request { */ union { struct hlist_node hash; /* merge hash */ - struct list_head ipi_list; + struct llist_node ipi_list; }; /* -- 2.30.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-25 9:54 ` [PATCH 3/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:23 ` Daniel Wagner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-25 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2021-01-25 9:54 ` [PATCH 3/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-01-27 11:23 ` Daniel Wagner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Daniel Wagner @ 2021-01-27 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:54:12AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > With llist_head it is possible to avoid the locking (the irq-off region) > when items are added. This makes it possible to add items on a remote > CPU without additional locking. > llist_add() returns true if the list was previously empty. This can be > used to invoke the SMP function call / raise sofirq only if the first > item was added (otherwise it is already pending). > This simplifies the code a little and reduces the IRQ-off regions. > > blk_mq_raise_softirq() needs a preempt-disable section to ensure the > request is enqueued on the same CPU as the softirq is raised. > Some callers (USB-storage) invoke this path in preemptible context. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> I did a quick test run with the whole series. Looks good. Reviewed-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-01-25 4:27 ` Jens Axboe 2021-02-10 14:43 ` Jens Axboe 4 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2021-01-25 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 1/23/21 1:10 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Patch 2+3 were applied and then dropped by Jens due to a NOHZ+softirq > related warning [0]. Turns out a successful wakeup via > set_nr_if_polling() will not process any softirqs and the CPU may go > back to idle. This is addressed by patch #1. > > smpcfd_dying_cpu() will also invoke SMP-functions calls via > flush_smp_call_function_queue() but the block layer shouldn't queue > anything because the CPU isn't online anymore. > The two caller of flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() look fine with > opening interrupts from within do_softirq(). > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1ee4b31b-350e-a9f5-4349-cfb34b89829a@kernel.dk I can queue up the block side once the IPI fix is in some stable branch that I can pull in. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2021-01-25 4:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Jens Axboe @ 2021-02-10 14:43 ` Jens Axboe 4 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2021-02-10 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, linux-block, linux-kernel Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar On 1/23/21 1:10 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Patch 2+3 were applied and then dropped by Jens due to a NOHZ+softirq > related warning [0]. Turns out a successful wakeup via > set_nr_if_polling() will not process any softirqs and the CPU may go > back to idle. This is addressed by patch #1. > > smpcfd_dying_cpu() will also invoke SMP-functions calls via > flush_smp_call_function_queue() but the block layer shouldn't queue > anything because the CPU isn't online anymore. > The two caller of flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() look fine with > opening interrupts from within do_softirq(). Applied, thanks. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT @ 2020-10-28 6:56 Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-28 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-block, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner > The remaining part is a switch to llist which avoids locking (IRQ > off/on) and it allows invoke the IPI/raise softirq only if something was > added. The entries are now processed in the reverse order but this > shouldn't matter right? For correctness it should not matter, but I think it could have performance implications. I think you'll have to throw in a llist_reverse_order. > I would split this into two patches (the blk_mq_complete_need_ipi() hunk > and the llist part) unless there are objections. Yes, please do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode 2020-10-28 6:56 [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-28 14:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-28 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior With force threaded interrupts enabled, raising softirq from an SMP function call will always result in waking the ksoftirqd thread. This is not optimal given that the thread runs at SCHED_OTHER priority. Completing the request in hard IRQ-context on PREEMPT_RT (which enforces the force threaded mode) is bad because the completion handler may acquire sleeping locks which violate the locking context. Disable request completing on a remote CPU in force threaded mode. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- block/blk-mq.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 55bcee5dc0320..421a40968c9ff 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -648,6 +648,14 @@ static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, &rq->q->queue_flags)) return false; + /* + * With force threaded interrupts enabled, raising softirq from an SMP + * function call will always result in waking the ksoftirqd thread. + * This is probably worse than completing the request on a different + * cache domain. + */ + if (force_irqthreads) + return false; /* same CPU or cache domain? Complete locally */ if (cpu == rq->mq_ctx->cpu || -- 2.28.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-28 14:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-28 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior With llist_head it is possible to avoid the locking (the irq-off region) when items are added. This makes it possible to add items on a remote CPU. llist_add() returns true if the list was previously empty. This can be used to invoke the SMP function call / raise sofirq only if the first item was added (otherwise it is already pending). This simplifies the code a little and reduces the IRQ-off regions. With this change it possible to reduce the SMP-function call a simple __raise_softirq_irqoff(). Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- block/blk-mq.c | 78 ++++++++++++++---------------------------- include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 769d2d532a825..4f53de48e5038 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ #include "blk-mq-sched.h" #include "blk-rq-qos.h" -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, blk_cpu_done); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct llist_head, blk_cpu_done); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_start(struct request_queue *q); static void blk_mq_poll_stats_fn(struct blk_stat_callback *cb); @@ -565,68 +565,32 @@ void blk_mq_end_request(struct request *rq, blk_status_t error) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_end_request); -/* - * Softirq action handler - move entries to local list and loop over them - * while passing them to the queue registered handler. - */ -static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) +static void blk_complete_reqs(struct llist_head *cpu_list) { - struct list_head *cpu_list, local_list; + struct llist_node *entry; + struct request *rq, *rq_next; - local_irq_disable(); - cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_replace_init(cpu_list, &local_list); - local_irq_enable(); + entry = llist_del_all(cpu_list); + entry = llist_reverse_order(entry); - while (!list_empty(&local_list)) { - struct request *rq; - - rq = list_entry(local_list.next, struct request, ipi_list); - list_del_init(&rq->ipi_list); + llist_for_each_entry_safe(rq, rq_next, entry, ipi_list) rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); - } } -static void blk_mq_trigger_softirq(struct request *rq) +static __latent_entropy void blk_done_softirq(struct softirq_action *h) { - struct list_head *list; - unsigned long flags; - - local_irq_save(flags); - list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); - list_add_tail(&rq->ipi_list, list); - - /* - * If the list only contains our just added request, signal a raise of - * the softirq. If there are already entries there, someone already - * raised the irq but it hasn't run yet. - */ - if (list->next == &rq->ipi_list) - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_restore(flags); + blk_complete_reqs(this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); } static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) { - /* - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU - * and trigger a run of the softirq - */ - local_irq_disable(); - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu), - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); - local_irq_enable(); - + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu)); return 0; } - static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data) { - struct request *rq = data; - - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + __raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); } static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) @@ -657,6 +621,7 @@ static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq) bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) { + struct llist_head *cpu_list; WRITE_ONCE(rq->state, MQ_RQ_COMPLETE); /* @@ -667,14 +632,21 @@ bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) return false; if (blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(rq)) { - rq->csd.func = __blk_mq_complete_request_remote; - rq->csd.info = rq; - rq->csd.flags = 0; - smp_call_function_single_async(rq->mq_ctx->cpu, &rq->csd); + unsigned int cpu; + + cpu = rq->mq_ctx->cpu; + cpu_list = &per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu); + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, cpu_list)) { + rq->csd.func = __blk_mq_complete_request_remote; + rq->csd.flags = 0; + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &rq->csd); + } } else { if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues > 1) return false; - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); + cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, cpu_list)) + raise_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); } return true; @@ -3905,7 +3877,7 @@ static int __init blk_mq_init(void) int i; for_each_possible_cpu(i) - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); + init_llist_head(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i)); open_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ, blk_done_softirq); cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_BLOCK_SOFTIRQ_DEAD, diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h index 639cae2c158b5..331b2b675b417 100644 --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ struct request { */ union { struct hlist_node hash; /* merge hash */ - struct list_head ipi_list; + struct llist_node ipi_list; }; /* -- 2.28.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-28 14:47 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-28 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) > { > - /* > - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU > - * and trigger a run of the softirq > - */ > - local_irq_disable(); > - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu), > - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); > - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); > - local_irq_enable(); > - > + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu)); > return 0; How can this be preempted? Can't we keep using this_cpu_ptr here? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-28 14:47 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-28 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner On 2020-10-28 14:44:53 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) > > { > > - /* > > - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU > > - * and trigger a run of the softirq > > - */ > > - local_irq_disable(); > > - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu), > > - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done)); > > - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); > > - local_irq_enable(); > > - > > + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu)); > > return 0; > > How can this be preempted? Can't we keep using this_cpu_ptr here? cpu of the dead CPU != this CPU. Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-block Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-10-28 15:12:51 [+0100], To linux-block@vger.kernel.org wrote: > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > @@ -667,14 +632,21 @@ bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) > return false; > > if (blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(rq)) { … > } else { > if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues > 1) > return false; > - blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq); > + cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); > + if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, cpu_list)) > + raise_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); > } > > return true; So Mike posted this: | BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: usb-storage/841 | caller is blk_mq_complete_request_remote.part.0+0xa2/0x120 | CPU: 0 PID: 841 Comm: usb-storage Not tainted 5.10.0-rc1+ #61 | Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-1 04/01/2014 | Call Trace: | dump_stack+0x77/0x97 | check_preemption_disabled+0xbe/0xc0 | blk_mq_complete_request_remote.part.0+0xa2/0x120 | blk_mq_complete_request+0x2e/0x40 | usb_stor_control_thread+0x29a/0x300 | kthread+0x14b/0x170 | ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 This comes from this_cpu_ptr() because usb_stor_control_thread() runs with enabled preemption. Adding preempt_disable() around it will make the warning go away but will wake the ksoftirqd (this happens now, too). Adding local_bh_disable() around it would perform the completion immediately (instead of waking kssoftirqd) but local_bh_enable() feels slightly more expensive. Are there many drivers completing the SCSI requests in preemtible context? In this case it would be more efficient to complete the request directly (usb_stor_control_thread() goes to sleep after that anyway and there is only one request at a time). Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-29 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, Christoph Hellwig, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 02:12:12PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Are there many drivers completing the SCSI requests in preemtible > context? In this case it would be more efficient to complete the request > directly (usb_stor_control_thread() goes to sleep after that anyway and > there is only one request at a time). Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer does not prohibit it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-10-29 14:05:36 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer > does not prohibit it. Also loop, nvme-tcp and then I stopped looking. Any objections about adding local_bh_disable() around it? Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-29 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith, Sagi Grimberg On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 03:56:23PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2020-10-29 14:05:36 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer > > does not prohibit it. > > Also loop, nvme-tcp and then I stopped looking. > Any objections about adding local_bh_disable() around it? To me it seems like the whole IPI plus potentially softirq dance is a little pointless when completing from process context. Sagi, any opinion on that from the nvme-tcp POV? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-10-29 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith >>> Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer >>> does not prohibit it. >> >> Also loop, nvme-tcp and then I stopped looking. >> Any objections about adding local_bh_disable() around it? > > To me it seems like the whole IPI plus potentially softirq dance is > a little pointless when completing from process context. I agree. > Sagi, any opinion on that from the nvme-tcp POV? nvme-tcp should (almost) always complete from the context that matches the rq->mq_ctx->cpu as the thread that processes incoming completions (per hctx) should be affinitized to match it (unless cpus come and go). So for nvme-tcp I don't expect blk_mq_complete_need_ipi to return true in normal operation. That leaves the teardowns+aborts, which aren't very interesting here. I would note that nvme-tcp does not go to sleep after completing every I/O like how sebastian indicated usb does. Having said that, today the network stack is calling nvme_tcp_data_ready in napi context (softirq) which in turn triggers the queue thread to handle network rx (and complete the I/O). It's been measured recently that running the rx context directly in softirq will save some latency (possible because nvme-tcp rx context is non-blocking). So I'd think that patch #2 is unnecessary and just add overhead for nvme-tcp.. do note that the napi softirq cpu mapping depends on the RSS steering, which is unlikely to match rq->mq_ctx->cpu, hence if completed from napi context, nvme-tcp will probably always go to the IPI path. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-10-29 13:03:26 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > > Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer > > > > does not prohibit it. > > > > > > Also loop, nvme-tcp and then I stopped looking. > > > Any objections about adding local_bh_disable() around it? > > > > To me it seems like the whole IPI plus potentially softirq dance is > > a little pointless when completing from process context. > > I agree. > > > Sagi, any opinion on that from the nvme-tcp POV? > > nvme-tcp should (almost) always complete from the context that matches > the rq->mq_ctx->cpu as the thread that processes incoming > completions (per hctx) should be affinitized to match it (unless cpus > come and go). in which context? But this is probably nr_hw_queues > 1? > So for nvme-tcp I don't expect blk_mq_complete_need_ipi to return true > in normal operation. That leaves the teardowns+aborts, which aren't very > interesting here. The process context invocation is nvme_tcp_complete_timed_out(). > I would note that nvme-tcp does not go to sleep after completing every > I/O like how sebastian indicated usb does. > > Having said that, today the network stack is calling nvme_tcp_data_ready > in napi context (softirq) which in turn triggers the queue thread to > handle network rx (and complete the I/O). It's been measured recently > that running the rx context directly in softirq will save some > latency (possible because nvme-tcp rx context is non-blocking). > > So I'd think that patch #2 is unnecessary and just add overhead for > nvme-tcp.. do note that the napi softirq cpu mapping depends on the RSS > steering, which is unlikely to match rq->mq_ctx->cpu, hence if completed > from napi context, nvme-tcp will probably always go to the IPI path. but running it in softirq on the remote CPU would still allow of other packets to come on the remote CPU (which would block BLOCK sofirq if NET_RX is already running). Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-10-29 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith >>>>> Well, usb-storage obviously seems to do it, and the block layer >>>>> does not prohibit it. >>>> >>>> Also loop, nvme-tcp and then I stopped looking. >>>> Any objections about adding local_bh_disable() around it? >>> >>> To me it seems like the whole IPI plus potentially softirq dance is >>> a little pointless when completing from process context. >> >> I agree. >> >>> Sagi, any opinion on that from the nvme-tcp POV? >> >> nvme-tcp should (almost) always complete from the context that matches >> the rq->mq_ctx->cpu as the thread that processes incoming >> completions (per hctx) should be affinitized to match it (unless cpus >> come and go). > > in which context? Not sure what is the question. > But this is probably nr_hw_queues > 1? Yes. >> So for nvme-tcp I don't expect blk_mq_complete_need_ipi to return true >> in normal operation. That leaves the teardowns+aborts, which aren't very >> interesting here. > > The process context invocation is nvme_tcp_complete_timed_out(). Yes. >> I would note that nvme-tcp does not go to sleep after completing every >> I/O like how sebastian indicated usb does. >> >> Having said that, today the network stack is calling nvme_tcp_data_ready >> in napi context (softirq) which in turn triggers the queue thread to >> handle network rx (and complete the I/O). It's been measured recently >> that running the rx context directly in softirq will save some >> latency (possible because nvme-tcp rx context is non-blocking). >> >> So I'd think that patch #2 is unnecessary and just add overhead for >> nvme-tcp.. do note that the napi softirq cpu mapping depends on the RSS >> steering, which is unlikely to match rq->mq_ctx->cpu, hence if completed >> from napi context, nvme-tcp will probably always go to the IPI path. > > but running it in softirq on the remote CPU would still allow of other > packets to come on the remote CPU (which would block BLOCK sofirq if > NET_RX is already running). Not sure I understand your comment, if napi triggers on core X and we complete from that, it will trigger IPI to core Y, and there with patch #2 is will trigger softirq instead of calling ->complete directly no? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-31 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, Jens Axboe, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > in which context? > > Not sure what is the question. The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case". > > But this is probably nr_hw_queues > 1? > > Yes. So this means it will either complete directly or issue an IPI. > > but running it in softirq on the remote CPU would still allow of other > > packets to come on the remote CPU (which would block BLOCK sofirq if > > NET_RX is already running). > > Not sure I understand your comment, if napi triggers on core X and we > complete from that, it will trigger IPI to core Y, and there with patch #2 > is will trigger softirq instead of calling ->complete directly no? This is correct. But trigger softirq does not mean that it will wake `ksoftirqd' as it is the case for the usb-storage right now. In your case (completing from NAPI/sofitrq (or for most other driver which complete in their IRQ handler)) it means: - trigger IPI - IPI will OR the BLOCK-softirq bit. - on exit from IPI it will invoke do_softirq() (unless softirq is already pending and got interrupted by the IPI) and complete the Block request. Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe 2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe 2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-10-31 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 10/31/20 4:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: >>> in which context? >> >> Not sure what is the question. > > The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess > by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case". There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe 2020-10-31 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-10-31 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Sagi Grimberg Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 10/31/20 9:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/31/20 4:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: >>>> in which context? >>> >>> Not sure what is the question. >> >> The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess >> by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case". > > There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to > complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and > that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always > been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. A more recent example is polled IO, which will always complete from process/task context and very much is fast path. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-10-31 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-10-31 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Sagi Grimberg, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:01:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/31/20 9:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 10/31/20 4:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>>> in which context? > >>> > >>> Not sure what is the question. > >> > >> The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess > >> by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case". > > > > There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to > > complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and > > that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always > > been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. > > A more recent example is polled IO, which will always complete from > process/task context and very much is fast path. But we never IPI for that anyway, so it is the easy case. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe 2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-11-02 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe Cc: Sagi Grimberg, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-10-31 09:00:49 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote: > There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to > complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and > that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always > been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. I'm not trying to put restrictions and forbidding completions from a kthread. I'm trying to avoid the pointless softirq dance for no added value. We could: diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 4f53de48e5038..c4693b3750878 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -644,9 +644,11 @@ bool blk_mq_complete_request_remote(struct request *rq) } else { if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues > 1) return false; + preempt_disable(); cpu_list = this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done); if (llist_add(&rq->ipi_list, cpu_list)) raise_softirq(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ); + preempt_enable(); } return true; to not break that assumption you just mentioned and provide |static inline void blk_mq_complete_request_local(struct request *rq) |{ | rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); |} so that completion issued from from process context (like those from usb-storage) don't end up waking `ksoftird' (running at SCHED_OTHER) completing the requests but rather performing it right away. The softirq dance makes no sense here. As mentioned earlier, the alternative _could_ be to s/preempt_/local_bh_/ in the above patch. This would ensure that any invocation outside of IRQ/Softirq context would invoke the softirq _directly_ at local_bh_enable() time rather than waking the daemon for that purpose. It would also avoid another completion function for the direct case which could be abused if used from outside the thread context. The last one is currently my favorite. Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-11-02 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Jens Axboe, Sagi Grimberg, Christoph Hellwig, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:55:33AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2020-10-31 09:00:49 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote: > > There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to > > complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and > > that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always > > been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. > > I'm not trying to put restrictions and forbidding completions from a > kthread. I'm trying to avoid the pointless softirq dance for no added > value. We could: > to not break that assumption you just mentioned and provide > |static inline void blk_mq_complete_request_local(struct request *rq) > |{ > | rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); > |} > > so that completion issued from from process context (like those from > usb-storage) don't end up waking `ksoftird' (running at SCHED_OTHER) > completing the requests but rather performing it right away. The softirq > dance makes no sense here. Agreed. But I don't think your above blk_mq_complete_request_local is all that useful either as ->complete is defined by the caller, so we could just do a direct call. Basically we should just return false from blk_mq_complete_request_remote after updating the state when called from process context. But given that IIRC we are not supposed to check what state we are called from we'll need a helper just for updating the state instead and ensure the driver uses the right helper. Now of course we might have process context callers that still want to bounce to the submitting CPU, but in that case we should go directly to a workqueue or similar. Either way doing this properly will probabl involve an audit of all drivers, but I think that is worth it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-11-04 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith >>> There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to >>> complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and >>> that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always >>> been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. >> >> I'm not trying to put restrictions and forbidding completions from a >> kthread. I'm trying to avoid the pointless softirq dance for no added >> value. We could: > >> to not break that assumption you just mentioned and provide >> |static inline void blk_mq_complete_request_local(struct request *rq) >> |{ >> | rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); >> |} >> >> so that completion issued from from process context (like those from >> usb-storage) don't end up waking `ksoftird' (running at SCHED_OTHER) >> completing the requests but rather performing it right away. The softirq >> dance makes no sense here. > > Agreed. But I don't think your above blk_mq_complete_request_local > is all that useful either as ->complete is defined by the caller, > so we could just do a direct call. Basically we should just > return false from blk_mq_complete_request_remote after updating > the state when called from process context. Agreed. > But given that IIRC > we are not supposed to check what state we are called from > we'll need a helper just for updating the state instead and > ensure the driver uses the right helper. Now of course we might > have process context callers that still want to bounce to the > submitting CPU, but in that case we should go directly to a > workqueue or similar. This would mean that it may be suboptimal for nvme-tcp to complete requests in softirq context from the network context (determined by NIC steering). Because in this case, this would trigger workqueue schedule on a per-request basis rather than once per .data_ready call like we do today. Is that correct? It has been observed that completing commands in softirq context (network determined cpu) because basically the completion does IPI + local complete, not IPI + softirq or IPI + workqueue. > Either way doing this properly will probabl involve an audit of all > drivers, but I think that is worth it. Agree. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done 2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg @ 2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2020-11-06 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe, Sagi Grimberg, linux-block, Thomas Gleixner, David Runge, linux-rt-users, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Daniel Wagner, Mike Galbraith On 2020-11-02 18:12:38 [+0000], Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > to not break that assumption you just mentioned and provide > > |static inline void blk_mq_complete_request_local(struct request *rq) > > |{ > > | rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq); > > |} > > > > so that completion issued from from process context (like those from > > usb-storage) don't end up waking `ksoftird' (running at SCHED_OTHER) > > completing the requests but rather performing it right away. The softirq > > dance makes no sense here. > > Agreed. But I don't think your above blk_mq_complete_request_local > is all that useful either as ->complete is defined by the caller, > so we could just do a direct call. In usb-storage case it is hidden somewhere in the SCSI stack but this can probably be changed later on. > Basically we should just > return false from blk_mq_complete_request_remote after updating > the state when called from process context. But given that IIRC > we are not supposed to check what state we are called from > we'll need a helper just for updating the state instead and > ensure the driver uses the right helper. Now of course we might > have process context callers that still want to bounce to the > submitting CPU, but in that case we should go directly to a > workqueue or similar. So instead blk_mq_complete_request_local() you want a helper to set the state in which the completion function is invoked. Sounds more like an argument :) > Either way doing this properly will probabl involve an audit of all > drivers, but I think that is worth it. I'm lost. Should I repost the three patches with a preempt_disable() section (as suggested) to not break preemptible callers? And then move from there to provide callers from preemtible context an alternative? Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-17 13:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 43+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-23 20:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Process pending softirqs in flush_smp_call_function_from_idle() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-01 19:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-09 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-02-09 11:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-10 13:53 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-02-17 13:17 ` tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 7:10 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-01-25 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 9:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:22 ` Daniel Wagner 2021-01-23 20:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:30 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 8:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 8:39 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-25 9:54 ` [PATCH 3/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-01-25 10:14 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-01-27 11:23 ` Daniel Wagner 2021-01-25 4:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] blk-mq: Don't complete in IRQ, use llist_head Jens Axboe 2021-02-10 14:43 ` Jens Axboe -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2020-10-28 6:56 [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-28 14:47 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe 2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe 2020-10-31 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg 2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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).