From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD23C433EF for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233135AbhLSOsp (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2021 09:48:45 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55314 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232635AbhLSOso (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2021 09:48:44 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75180C061574 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 06:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id k21so10101879ioh.4 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 06:48:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tLslNh35lX6awF6jHiRUpCC73uOfcNwrJ0i0JnkoPqM=; b=RcnS8qz/lF363AxUd5nqZAEtTevwiNMgbZ8n4nqKKeaGUryiZws8/+j2rxYKj1+C8H m5beSqfobOYRX8x8qVmwCs2QkMEr1FzzcPLDmcjGl0251u5EnGkVrK6HmzxedL4/i/iF bqFO2f3jtsJrnFsyhnGg/Of3in6ixkzjY8Z4Y08Hhru3gHwxhaWvEEo7wcj8XIk3HIaY EYfFgWSU1NJF5R9gurpQbIfeQl8Ek+dS1pRerYK0Cw+NYlkWsHA6cmU6fJSilh6nE5Iu 4WmX1Lu7WQaE4rKsoPoyKuORsZiwDPQ/XO2RylJEF+C9Uh2FqXpq0PZC9AgsinE7QROS R4Dw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tLslNh35lX6awF6jHiRUpCC73uOfcNwrJ0i0JnkoPqM=; b=STLQH7LifQZN047GyPbso2+47jk81PGwi2oZiCn+oNbP+iY9phnbg9KQZ3Xn8HjVqL k0NBk7Z8XRjS/7EYZ9mk32IfKRt2GHi5vWuXS7W4Z2yBd3AzjITcLhGQhYqfMSjQ8FS/ Ej7AcSCbbaNl57rKGQyNh2rNXPaftfpPpwGu+RHuM+ciQ9xWBddhtoeXHmWw5AH5aZTC /JDHSdEaHz/sGrnliJVgWgL9SxGYytDyj7GT4r7c+NTYFDk85jejP8Q1lXV3GuAQG3Mm lMjtr6W7sRbZFrN/F8ZIRWSum2iQstgR+017jcOhzgKTIBSlItTcKPRZlcsrGz3q2szN KK6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Oi2B1dfPRevnYJe/u2rsy1Vz0hSpfX6T6b5w15vLX2izimZjC FyYRFSLLi8VS4lDU9ZTZzULEOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziAgLz6bBLg/megYE/ZNGKCFirQU8QOGYhJL+txqzjWPfTXZ8HQTpgssmMBN6RRMGx9fMoNw== X-Received: by 2002:a02:6d4f:: with SMTP id e15mr7196087jaf.55.1639925323609; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 06:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([66.219.217.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d11sm8975240ilv.73.2021.12.19.06.48.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 19 Dec 2021 06:48:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] nvme: add support for mq_ops->queue_rqs() To: Max Gurtovoy , Christoph Hellwig Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Hannes Reinecke , Oren Duer References: <20211215162421.14896-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20211215162421.14896-5-axboe@kernel.dk> <2adafc43-3860-d9f0-9cb5-ca3bf9a27109@nvidia.com> <06ab52e6-47b7-6010-524c-45bb73fbfabc@kernel.dk> <9b4202b4-192a-6611-922e-0b837e2b97c3@nvidia.com> <5f249c03-5cb2-9978-cd2c-669c0594d1c0@kernel.dk> <3474493a-a04d-528c-7565-f75db5205074@nvidia.com> <87e3a197-e8f7-d8d6-85b6-ce05bf1f35cd@kernel.dk> <5ee0e257-651a-ec44-7ca3-479438a737fb@nvidia.com> <01f9ce91-d998-c823-f2f2-de457625021e@nvidia.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <573bbe72-d232-6063-dd34-2e12d8374594@kernel.dk> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 07:48:42 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <01f9ce91-d998-c823-f2f2-de457625021e@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 12/19/21 5:14 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 12/16/2021 7:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 12/16/21 9:57 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>> On 12/16/2021 6:36 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 12/16/21 9:34 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>> On 12/16/2021 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:19 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 6:05 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 9:00 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 5:48 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/21 6:06 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2021 11:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:24:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> + spin_lock(&nvmeq->sq_lock); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + while (!rq_list_empty(*rqlist)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct request *req = rq_list_pop(rqlist); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct nvme_iod *iod = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(req); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + memcpy(nvmeq->sq_cmds + (nvmeq->sq_tail << nvmeq->sqes), >>>>>>>>>>>>> + absolute_pointer(&iod->cmd), sizeof(iod->cmd)); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (++nvmeq->sq_tail == nvmeq->q_depth) >>>>>>>>>>>>> + nvmeq->sq_tail = 0; >>>>>>>>>>>> So this doesn't even use the new helper added in patch 2? I think this >>>>>>>>>>>> should call nvme_sq_copy_cmd(). >>>>>>>>>>> I also noticed that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So need to decide if to open code it or use the helper function. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Inline helper sounds reasonable if you have 3 places that will use it. >>>>>>>>>> Yes agree, that's been my stance too :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The rest looks identical to the incremental patch I posted, so I guess >>>>>>>>>>>> the performance degration measured on the first try was a measurement >>>>>>>>>>>> error? >>>>>>>>>>> giving 1 dbr for a batch of N commands sounds good idea. Also for RDMA host. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But how do you moderate it ? what is the batch_sz <--> time_to_wait >>>>>>>>>>> algorithm ? >>>>>>>>>> The batching is naturally limited at BLK_MAX_REQUEST_COUNT, which is 32 >>>>>>>>>> in total. I do agree that if we ever made it much larger, then we might >>>>>>>>>> want to cap it differently. But 32 seems like a pretty reasonable number >>>>>>>>>> to get enough gain from the batching done in various areas, while still >>>>>>>>>> not making it so large that we have a potential latency issue. That >>>>>>>>>> batch count is already used consistently for other items too (like tag >>>>>>>>>> allocation), so it's not specific to just this one case. >>>>>>>>> I'm saying that the you can wait to the batch_max_count too long and it >>>>>>>>> won't be efficient from latency POV. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So it's better to limit the block layar to wait for the first to come: x >>>>>>>>> usecs or batch_max_count before issue queue_rqs. >>>>>>>> There's no waiting specifically for this, it's just based on the plug. >>>>>>>> We just won't do more than 32 in that plug. This is really just an >>>>>>>> artifact of the plugging, and if that should be limited based on "max of >>>>>>>> 32 or xx time", then that should be done there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But in general I think it's saner and enough to just limit the total >>>>>>>> size. If we spend more than xx usec building up the plug list, we're >>>>>>>> doing something horribly wrong. That really should not happen with 32 >>>>>>>> requests, and we'll never eg wait on requests if we're out of tags. That >>>>>>>> will result in a plug flush to begin with. >>>>>>> I'm not aware of the plug. I hope to get to it soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My concern is if the user application submitted only 28 requests and >>>>>>> then you'll wait forever ? or for very long time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess not, but I'm asking how do you know how to batch and when to >>>>>>> stop in case 32 commands won't arrive anytime soon. >>>>>> The plug is in the stack of the task, so that condition can never >>>>>> happen. If the application originally asks for 32 but then only submits >>>>>> 28, then once that last one is submitted the plug is flushed and >>>>>> requests are issued. >>>>> So if I'm running fio with --iodepth=28 what will plug do ? send batches >>>>> of 28 ? or 1 by 1 ? >>>> --iodepth just controls the overall depth, the batch submit count >>>> dictates what happens further down. If you run queue depth 28 and submit >>>> one at the time, then you'll get one at the time further down too. Hence >>>> the batching is directly driven by what the application is already >>>> doing. >>> I see. Thanks for the explanation. >>> >>> So it works only for io_uring based applications ? >> It's only enabled for io_uring right now, but it's generically available >> for anyone that wants to use it... Would be trivial to do for aio, and >> other spots that currently use blk_start_plug() and has an idea of how >> many IOs will be submitted > > Can you please share an example application (or is it fio patches) that > can submit batches ? The same that was used to test this patchset is > fine too. > > I would like to test it with our NVMe SNAP controllers and also to > develop NVMe/RDMA queue_rqs code and test the perf with it. You should just be able to use iodepth_batch with fio. For my peak testing, I use t/io_uring from the fio repo. By default, it'll run QD of and do batches of 32 for complete and submit. You can just run: t/io_uring maybe adding -p0 for IRQ driven rather than polled IO. -- Jens Axboe