[PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

In [0], Kashyap reports high CPU usage for blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()
and callees for shared tags.

Indeed blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() would be less optimum for moving to
shared tags, but it was not optimum previously.

So I would like this series tested, and also to know what is triggering
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() from userspace to cause such high CPU
loading.

As suggested by Ming, reading /proc/diskstats in a while true loop
can trigger blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(); I do so in a test with 2x
separate consoles, and here are the results:

v5.15
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() 6.2%
part_stat_read_all() 6.7

pre-v5.16 (Linus' master branch @ commit bfc484fe6abb)
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() 4.5%
part_stat_read_all() 6.2

pre-v5.16+this series
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() not shown in top users
part_stat_read_all() 7.5%

These results are from perf top, on a system with 7x
disks, with hisi_sas which has 16x HW queues.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/

John Garry (3):
  blk-mq: Drop busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx argument
  blk-mq: Delete busy_iter_fn
  blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

 block/blk-mq-tag.c     | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 block/blk-mq-tag.h     |  2 +-
 block/blk-mq.c         | 17 ++++++-------
 include/linux/blk-mq.h |  2 --
 4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH RFT 1/3] blk-mq: Drop busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx argument

[John Garry]

The only user of blk_mq_hw_ctx blk_mq_hw_ctx argument is
blk_mq_rq_inflight().

Function blk_mq_rq_inflight() uses the hctx to find the associated request
queue to match against the request. However this same check is already
done in caller bt_iter(), so drop this check.

With that change there are no more users of busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx
argument, so drop the argument.

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-mq-tag.c     |  2 +-
 block/blk-mq.c         | 17 ++++++++---------
 include/linux/blk-mq.h |  3 +--
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 995336abee33..0d773c44a7ec 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 		return true;
 
 	if (rq->q == hctx->queue && rq->mq_hctx == hctx)
-		ret = iter_data->fn(hctx, rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
+		ret = iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
 	blk_mq_put_rq_ref(rq);
 	return ret;
 }
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 07eb1412760b..c26e6c9301dd 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -126,8 +126,7 @@ struct mq_inflight {
 	unsigned int inflight[2];
 };
 
-static bool blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
-				  struct request *rq, void *priv,
+static bool blk_mq_check_inflight(struct request *rq, void *priv,
 				  bool reserved)
 {
 	struct mq_inflight *mi = priv;
@@ -1136,14 +1135,15 @@ void blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list(struct request_queue *q,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list);
 
-static bool blk_mq_rq_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
-			       void *priv, bool reserved)
+static bool blk_mq_rq_inflight(struct request *rq, void *priv,
+			       bool reserved)
 {
 	/*
-	 * If we find a request that isn't idle and the queue matches,
-	 * we know the queue is busy. Return false to stop the iteration.
+	 * If we find a request that isn't idle we know the queue is busy
+	 * as it's checked in the iter.
+	 * Return false to stop the iteration.
 	 */
-	if (blk_mq_request_started(rq) && rq->q == hctx->queue) {
+	if (blk_mq_request_started(rq)) {
 		bool *busy = priv;
 
 		*busy = true;
@@ -1205,8 +1205,7 @@ void blk_mq_put_rq_ref(struct request *rq)
 		__blk_mq_free_request(rq);
 }
 
-static bool blk_mq_check_expired(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
-		struct request *rq, void *priv, bool reserved)
+static bool blk_mq_check_expired(struct request *rq, void *priv, bool reserved)
 {
 	unsigned long *next = priv;
 
diff --git a/include/linux/blk-mq.h b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
index 8682663e7368..da8de0d6f99b 100644
--- a/include/linux/blk-mq.h
+++ b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
@@ -479,8 +479,7 @@ struct blk_mq_queue_data {
 	bool last;
 };
 
-typedef bool (busy_iter_fn)(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *, struct request *, void *,
-		bool);
+typedef bool (busy_iter_fn)(struct request *, void *, bool);
 typedef bool (busy_tag_iter_fn)(struct request *, void *, bool);
 
 /**
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH RFT 1/3] blk-mq: Drop busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx argument

[Ming Lei]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 07:27:33PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> The only user of blk_mq_hw_ctx blk_mq_hw_ctx argument is
> blk_mq_rq_inflight().
> 
> Function blk_mq_rq_inflight() uses the hctx to find the associated request
> queue to match against the request. However this same check is already
> done in caller bt_iter(), so drop this check.
> 
> With that change there are no more users of busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx
> argument, so drop the argument.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>

-- 
Ming

Re: [PATCH RFT 1/3] blk-mq: Drop busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx argument

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 11/2/21 12:27 PM, John Garry wrote:
> The only user of blk_mq_hw_ctx blk_mq_hw_ctx argument is
> blk_mq_rq_inflight().
> 
> Function blk_mq_rq_inflight() uses the hctx to find the associated request
> queue to match against the request. However this same check is already
> done in caller bt_iter(), so drop this check.
> 
> With that change there are no more users of busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx
> argument, so drop the argument.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-mq-tag.c     |  2 +-
>   block/blk-mq.c         | 17 ++++++++---------
>   include/linux/blk-mq.h |  3 +--
>   3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
Reviewed-by Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

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

[PATCH RFT 2/3] blk-mq: Delete busy_iter_fn

[John Garry]

Typedefs busy_iter_fn and busy_tag_iter_fn are now identical, so delete
busy_iter_fn to reduce duplication.

It would be nicer to delete busy_tag_iter_fn, as the name busy_iter_fn is
less specific.

However busy_tag_iter_fn is used in many different parts of the tree,
unlike busy_iter_fn which is just use in block/, so just take the
straightforward path now, so that we could rename later treewide.

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-mq-tag.c     | 6 +++---
 block/blk-mq-tag.h     | 2 +-
 include/linux/blk-mq.h | 1 -
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 0d773c44a7ec..bc233ea92adf 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ void blk_mq_put_tags(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, int *tag_array, int nr_tags)
 
 struct bt_iter_data {
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
-	busy_iter_fn *fn;
+	busy_tag_iter_fn *fn;
 	void *data;
 	bool reserved;
 };
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
  *		bitmap_tags member of struct blk_mq_tags.
  */
 static void bt_for_each(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct sbitmap_queue *bt,
-			busy_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved)
+			busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved)
 {
 	struct bt_iter_data iter_data = {
 		.hctx = hctx,
@@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request);
  * called for all requests on all queues that share that tag set and not only
  * for requests associated with @q.
  */
-void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_iter_fn *fn,
+void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 		void *priv)
 {
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.h b/block/blk-mq-tag.h
index df787b5a23bd..5668e28be0b7 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.h
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.h
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ extern void blk_mq_tag_resize_shared_tags(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
 extern void blk_mq_tag_update_sched_shared_tags(struct request_queue *q);
 
 extern void blk_mq_tag_wakeup_all(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, bool);
-void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_iter_fn *fn,
+void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 		void *priv);
 void blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 		void *priv);
diff --git a/include/linux/blk-mq.h b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
index da8de0d6f99b..2344c68bff35 100644
--- a/include/linux/blk-mq.h
+++ b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
@@ -479,7 +479,6 @@ struct blk_mq_queue_data {
 	bool last;
 };
 
-typedef bool (busy_iter_fn)(struct request *, void *, bool);
 typedef bool (busy_tag_iter_fn)(struct request *, void *, bool);
 
 /**
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH RFT 2/3] blk-mq: Delete busy_iter_fn

[Ming Lei]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 07:27:34PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Typedefs busy_iter_fn and busy_tag_iter_fn are now identical, so delete
> busy_iter_fn to reduce duplication.
> 
> It would be nicer to delete busy_tag_iter_fn, as the name busy_iter_fn is
> less specific.
> 
> However busy_tag_iter_fn is used in many different parts of the tree,
> unlike busy_iter_fn which is just use in block/, so just take the
> straightforward path now, so that we could rename later treewide.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>

-- 
Ming

Re: [PATCH RFT 2/3] blk-mq: Delete busy_iter_fn

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 11/2/21 12:27 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Typedefs busy_iter_fn and busy_tag_iter_fn are now identical, so delete
> busy_iter_fn to reduce duplication.
> 
> It would be nicer to delete busy_tag_iter_fn, as the name busy_iter_fn is
> less specific.
> 
> However busy_tag_iter_fn is used in many different parts of the tree,
> unlike busy_iter_fn which is just use in block/, so just take the
> straightforward path now, so that we could rename later treewide.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-mq-tag.c     | 6 +++---
>   block/blk-mq-tag.h     | 2 +-
>   include/linux/blk-mq.h | 1 -
>   3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

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

[PATCH RFT 3/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].

Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.

Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
all HW queues.

Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.

Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
different implementation.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-mq-tag.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index bc233ea92adf..00515933c8a8 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -215,6 +215,7 @@ void blk_mq_put_tags(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, int *tag_array, int nr_tags)
 
 struct bt_iter_data {
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
+	struct request_queue *q;
 	busy_tag_iter_fn *fn;
 	void *data;
 	bool reserved;
@@ -238,11 +239,18 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 {
 	struct bt_iter_data *iter_data = data;
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = iter_data->hctx;
-	struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
+	struct request_queue *q = iter_data->q;
 	bool reserved = iter_data->reserved;
+	struct blk_mq_tag_set *set = q->tag_set;
+	struct blk_mq_tags *tags;
 	struct request *rq;
 	bool ret = true;
 
+	if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(set->flags))
+		tags = set->shared_tags;
+	else
+		tags = hctx->tags;
+
 	if (!reserved)
 		bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags;
 	/*
@@ -253,7 +261,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 	if (!rq)
 		return true;
 
-	if (rq->q == hctx->queue && rq->mq_hctx == hctx)
+	if (rq->q == q && (!hctx || rq->mq_hctx == hctx))
 		ret = iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
 	blk_mq_put_rq_ref(rq);
 	return ret;
@@ -274,13 +282,15 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
  *		bitmap_tags member of struct blk_mq_tags.
  */
 static void bt_for_each(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct sbitmap_queue *bt,
-			busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved)
+			busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved,
+			struct request_queue *q)
 {
 	struct bt_iter_data iter_data = {
 		.hctx = hctx,
 		.fn = fn,
 		.data = data,
 		.reserved = reserved,
+		.q = q,
 	};
 
 	sbitmap_for_each_set(&bt->sb, bt_iter, &iter_data);
@@ -460,9 +470,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request);
 void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 		void *priv)
 {
-	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
-	int i;
-
 	/*
 	 * __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues() updates nr_hw_queues and queue_hw_ctx
 	 * while the queue is frozen. So we can use q_usage_counter to avoid
@@ -471,19 +478,30 @@ void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 	if (!percpu_ref_tryget(&q->q_usage_counter))
 		return;
 
-	queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
-		struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
-
-		/*
-		 * If no software queues are currently mapped to this
-		 * hardware queue, there's nothing to check
-		 */
-		if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(hctx))
-			continue;
+	if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(q->tag_set->flags)) {
+		struct blk_mq_tags *tags = q->tag_set->shared_tags;
 
 		if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
-			bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true);
-		bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false);
+			bt_for_each(NULL, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true, q);
+		bt_for_each(NULL, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, q);
+	} else {
+		struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
+		int i;
+
+		queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
+			struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
+
+			/*
+			 * If no software queues are currently mapped to this
+			 * hardware queue, there's nothing to check
+			 */
+			if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(hctx))
+				continue;
+
+			if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
+				bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true, q);
+			bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, q);
+		}
 	}
 	blk_queue_exit(q);
 }
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH RFT 3/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 11/2/21 12:27 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
> using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].
> 
> Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
> than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
> yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.
> 
> Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
> parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
> bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
> accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
> all HW queues.
> 
> Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
> shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
> relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.
> 
> Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
> different implementation.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-mq-tag.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

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

Re: [PATCH RFT 3/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Ming Lei]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 07:27:35PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
> using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].
> 
> Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
> than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
> yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.
> 
> Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
> parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
> bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
> accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
> all HW queues.
> 
> Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
> shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
> relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.
> 
> Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
> different implementation.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>

Looks fine,

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>


Thanks,
Ming

Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

On 02/11/2021 11:27, John Garry wrote:

Hi Kashyap,

Any chance you can try this series or give an update on the issue 
reported earlier?

thanks @ Ming for the reviews.

Cheers,
John

> In [0], Kashyap reports high CPU usage for blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()
> and callees for shared tags.
> 
> Indeed blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() would be less optimum for moving to
> shared tags, but it was not optimum previously.
> 
> So I would like this series tested, and also to know what is triggering
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() from userspace to cause such high CPU
> loading.
> 
> As suggested by Ming, reading /proc/diskstats in a while true loop
> can trigger blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(); I do so in a test with 2x
> separate consoles, and here are the results:
> 
> v5.15
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() 6.2%
> part_stat_read_all() 6.7
> 
> pre-v5.16 (Linus' master branch @ commit bfc484fe6abb)
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() 4.5%
> part_stat_read_all() 6.2
> 
> pre-v5.16+this series
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() not shown in top users
> part_stat_read_all() 7.5%
> 
> These results are from perf top, on a system with 7x
> disks, with hisi_sas which has 16x HW queues.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> John Garry (3):
>    blk-mq: Drop busy_iter_fn blk_mq_hw_ctx argument
>    blk-mq: Delete busy_iter_fn
>    blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags
> 
>   block/blk-mq-tag.c     | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>   block/blk-mq-tag.h     |  2 +-
>   block/blk-mq.c         | 17 ++++++-------
>   include/linux/blk-mq.h |  2 --
>   4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 

RE: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Kashyap Desai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 219 bytes --]

> Hi Kashyap,
>
> Any chance you can try this series or give an update on the issue reported
> earlier?

John -

I will try something this week and let you know.

>
> thanks @ Ming for the reviews.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]

RE: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Kashyap Desai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2297 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kashyap Desai [mailto:kashyap.desai@broadcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:02 PM
> To: 'John Garry' <john.garry@huawei.com>; 'axboe@kernel.dk'
> <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Cc: 'linux-block@vger.kernel.org' <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>; 'linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>;
> 'ming.lei@redhat.com'
> <ming.lei@redhat.com>; 'hare@suse.de' <hare@suse.de>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()
> for shared tags
>
> > Hi Kashyap,
> >
> > Any chance you can try this series or give an update on the issue
> > reported earlier?
>
> John -
>
> I will try something this week and let you know.

John - I tested patchset and looks good.  Issue reported at below thread is
fixed.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/

Here is perf top data.

5.70%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] complete_cmd_fusion
   3.80%  [megaraid_sas]                [k]
megasas_build_and_issue_cmd_fusion
   2.75%  [kernel]                      [k] syscall_return_via_sysret
   2.68%  [kernel]                      [k] entry_SYSCALL_64
   2.22%  [kernel]                      [k] io_submit_one
   2.19%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] megasas_build_ldio_fusion
   1.95%  [kernel]                      [k] llist_add_batch
   1.80%  [kernel]                      [k] llist_reverse_order
   1.79%  [kernel]                      [k] scsi_complete
   1.73%  [kernel]                      [k] scsi_queue_rq
   1.66%  [kernel]                      [k] check_preemption_disabled
   1.37%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] megasas_queue_command
   1.16%  [kernel]                      [k] native_irq_return_iret
   1.11%  [kernel]                      [k] aio_complete_rw
   1.07%  [kernel]                      [k] read_tsc
   1.06%  fio                           [.] __fio_gettime
   1.05%  [kernel]                      [k] flush_smp_call_function_queue
   1.03%  [kernel]                      [k] blk_complete_reqs
   1.00%  [kernel]                      [k] blk_mq_free_request
   0.98%  [kernel]                      [k] sbitmap_get


I will continue testing and let you know how it goes.


Kashyap

>
> >
> > thanks @ Ming for the reviews.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John
> >

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

On 25/11/2021 13:46, Kashyap Desai wrote:
>> John -
>>
>> I will try something this week and let you know.
> John - I tested patchset and looks good.  Issue reported at below thread is
> fixed.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Here is perf top data.
> 
> 5.70%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] complete_cmd_fusion
>     3.80%  [megaraid_sas]                [k]
> megasas_build_and_issue_cmd_fusion
>     2.75%  [kernel]                      [k] syscall_return_via_sysret
>     2.68%  [kernel]                      [k] entry_SYSCALL_64
>     2.22%  [kernel]                      [k] io_submit_one
>     2.19%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] megasas_build_ldio_fusion
>     1.95%  [kernel]                      [k] llist_add_batch
>     1.80%  [kernel]                      [k] llist_reverse_order
>     1.79%  [kernel]                      [k] scsi_complete
>     1.73%  [kernel]                      [k] scsi_queue_rq
>     1.66%  [kernel]                      [k] check_preemption_disabled
>     1.37%  [megaraid_sas]                [k] megasas_queue_command
>     1.16%  [kernel]                      [k] native_irq_return_iret
>     1.11%  [kernel]                      [k] aio_complete_rw
>     1.07%  [kernel]                      [k] read_tsc
>     1.06%  fio                           [.] __fio_gettime
>     1.05%  [kernel]                      [k] flush_smp_call_function_queue
>     1.03%  [kernel]                      [k] blk_complete_reqs
>     1.00%  [kernel]                      [k] blk_mq_free_request
>     0.98%  [kernel]                      [k] sbitmap_get
> 
> 
> I will continue testing and let you know how it goes.

ok, good to know, thanks. But I would still like to know what is 
triggering blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() so often. Indeed, as mentioned 
in this cover letter, this function was hardly optimised before for 
shared sbitmap.

And any opinion whether we would want this as a fix? Information 
requested above would help explain why we would need it as a fix.

Cheers,
John

RE: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Kashyap Desai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1575 bytes --]

> >
> >
> > I will continue testing and let you know how it goes.
>
> ok, good to know, thanks. But I would still like to know what is
> triggering
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() so often. Indeed, as mentioned in this cover
> letter, this function was hardly optimised before for shared sbitmap.

If I give  "--disk_util=0" option in my fio run, caller of "
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter" reduced drastically.
As part of <fio> run, application call diskutils operations and it is almost
same as doing "cat /proc/stats" in loop.
Looking at fio code, it call diskstats every 250 msec. Here is sample fio
logs -

diskutil 87720 /sys/block/sdb/stat: stat read ok? 0
diskutil 87720 update io ticks
diskutil 87720 open stat file: /sys/block/sdb/stat
diskutil 87720 /sys/block/sdb/stat: 127853173        0 1022829056 241827073
0        0        0        0      255   984012 241827073        0        0
0        0        0        0

There is one more call trace, but not sure why it is getting executed in my
test.  Below path does not execute so frequently but it consumes cpu (not
noticeable on my setup)

kthread
        worker_thread
        process_one_work
        blk_mq_timeout_work
        blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter
        bt_iter
        blk_mq_find_and_get_req
        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath


This patch set improves above call trace even after disk_util=0 is set.

Kashyap

>
> And any opinion whether we would want this as a fix? Information requested
> above would help explain why we would need it as a fix.
>
> Cheers,
> John

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

On 26/11/2021 11:25, Kashyap Desai wrote:
>>>
>>> I will continue testing and let you know how it goes.
>> ok, good to know, thanks. But I would still like to know what is
>> triggering
>> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() so often. Indeed, as mentioned in this cover
>> letter, this function was hardly optimised before for shared sbitmap.
> If I give  "--disk_util=0" option in my fio run, caller of "
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter" reduced drastically.
> As part of <fio> run, application call diskutils operations and it is almost
> same as doing "cat /proc/stats" in loop.
> Looking at fio code, it call diskstats every 250 msec. Here is sample fio
> logs -
> 
> diskutil 87720 /sys/block/sdb/stat: stat read ok? 0
> diskutil 87720 update io ticks
> diskutil 87720 open stat file: /sys/block/sdb/stat
> diskutil 87720 /sys/block/sdb/stat: 127853173        0 1022829056 241827073
> 0        0        0        0      255   984012 241827073        0        0
> 0        0        0        0
> 
> There is one more call trace, but not sure why it is getting executed in my
> test.  Below path does not execute so frequently but it consumes cpu (not
> noticeable on my setup)
> 
> kthread
>          worker_thread
>          process_one_work
>          blk_mq_timeout_work
>          blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter
>          bt_iter
>          blk_mq_find_and_get_req
>          _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>          native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 
> 

It would be still nice to know where this is coming from.

> This patch set improves above call trace even after disk_util=0 is set.
ok, fine. Thanks for testing.

So I guess that this is a regression, and you would want this series for 
v5.16, right? My changes were made with v5.17 in mind.

I am not sure how Jens feels about it, since the changes are 
significant. It would be a lot easier to argue for v5.16 if we got to 
this point earlier in the cycle...

Anyway, it would be good to have full review first, so please help with 
that.

@Ming, can you please give feedback on 3/3 here?

BTW, I am on vacation next week and can't help progress then, so any 
assistance would be good.

Thanks,
John

Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

On 26/11/2021 11:51, John Garry wrote:
>> This patch set improves above call trace even after disk_util=0 is set.
> ok, fine. Thanks for testing.
> 
> So I guess that this is a regression, and you would want this series for 
> v5.16, right? My changes were made with v5.17 in mind.
> 
> I am not sure how Jens feels about it, since the changes are 
> significant. It would be a lot easier to argue for v5.16 if we got to 
> this point earlier in the cycle...
> 

note: I will now resend for 5.17 and add your tested-by, please let me 
know if unhappy about that.

> Anyway, it would be good to have full review first, so please help with 
> that.
> 
> @Ming, can you please give feedback on 3/3 here?

Thanks and also to Hannes for the reviews.

john

RE: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[Kashyap Desai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Garry [mailto:john.garry@huawei.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:28 PM
> To: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>; axboe@kernel.dk
> Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> ming.lei@redhat.com; hare@suse.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()
> for shared tags
>
> On 26/11/2021 11:51, John Garry wrote:
> >> This patch set improves above call trace even after disk_util=0 is set.
> > ok, fine. Thanks for testing.
> >
> > So I guess that this is a regression, and you would want this series
> > for v5.16, right? My changes were made with v5.17 in mind.
> >
> > I am not sure how Jens feels about it, since the changes are
> > significant. It would be a lot easier to argue for v5.16 if we got to
> > this point earlier in the cycle...
> >
>
> note: I will now resend for 5.17 and add your tested-by, please let me
> know if
> unhappy about that.

John - 5.17 should be OK. I am doing additional testing and so far no issue.

Tested-by: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>

>
> > Anyway, it would be good to have full review first, so please help
> > with that.
> >
> > @Ming, can you please give feedback on 3/3 here?
>
> Thanks and also to Hannes for the reviews.
>
> john

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

[John Garry]

On 06/12/2021 10:03, Kashyap Desai wrote:
>> note: I will now resend for 5.17 and add your tested-by, please let me
>> know if
>> unhappy about that.
> John - 5.17 should be OK. I am doing additional testing and so far no issue.
> 
> Tested-by: Kashyap Desai<kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>
> 

Hi Kashyap,

On a related topic, you mentioned in an earlier discussion another 
possible regression you saw around 5.11 or 5.12, unrelated to shared 
tags transition:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/

Did you come to any conclusion on that?

Thanks,
John