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 55EEFC433F5 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231327AbhLTOTD (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:19:03 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55170 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231219AbhLTOTD (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:19:03 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63887C061574 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 06:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id z26so13398168iod.10 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 06:19:03 -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=mGrT0TMbemsqGlEP8fwaVyoJZtXS0CyxzliSlJyLTuw=; b=uYIoLh72flE6+kw+DPZrRHHmpnUsTNobQx1EW5FRC9zg1WHXRQJW9B0lQsRpPzje2E ETNChHHtXYgubUM04L7eybvy+JW1t83sKq5fWN9E/a/FhzwR/StzfsfmeIBrYvbDR0OQ +wdGseklcpCALtsUNBvvSnKAZohIKQQMygm4nYGDjTwZp6dpoiVGMIYKQ+OOinY2EszG Fr9qE2eA30rW4nSN6WKZQnBz0DkjDPF34UXPtRenSf/ApMduYOyMYUU7LCP/fok2wtHS 6JdnZ0+Is6oWELae/xPJeFxu5aLcoQIW5AGLRRueJQGEyBV+fPN/Jy3iLyxOSK1sNM9q Buyw== 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=mGrT0TMbemsqGlEP8fwaVyoJZtXS0CyxzliSlJyLTuw=; b=AUwfq4vUgjOJ5aVY8fTRr9DZkWwhvrZLmshwIRtSdiYedG5Bo+CvGOHSKCqN159kg1 z3HluvWO4qBKiRC9y7/6kW2+LqEfov+C8g0PG39a7ah7ouw0CCjVmj02siINA98GPB70 OmqxTTTrSwE+M1c6OD/23hLcnVzCjLSkTXGKRNNtnpAQXvnDG9jG2AiymF5m7WJELP5T VwGtE1xa75ZDY8v4gyFRUvPUJmgoNG4RwQzPPDnvqEzZ0oQbPdAyn0Xc/9gstknK9POp 8tVil8ZT5/WwGMMOMwOw8+4IgceSDsIpZnkPlBL/fgV2V5CeeScqXXC4vvXu4n6hA/Pa WXVw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gUyB9ntUA+NFHGwW4GZcqeIoQ5L+TUji9ByL/9QJjeb/o0oI3 i9lBjMA71LXp/JEODBaJax9vPw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztYbgHfd5vMmFG4L3Xj8tWJQ299v3ZFMwlzYkb2aaPPCaz1UK9x7zZ4oaXyzaGEaFkfIO5CA== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:2cc1:: with SMTP id s184mr8168922ios.63.1640009942704; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 06:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([66.219.217.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n10sm10890658ilk.58.2021.12.20.06.19.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 06:19:02 -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> <573bbe72-d232-6063-dd34-2e12d8374594@kernel.dk> <4fbf2936-8e4c-9c04-e5a9-10eae387b562@nvidia.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <6ca82929-7e70-be15-dcbb-1e68a02dd933@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:19:01 -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: <4fbf2936-8e4c-9c04-e5a9-10eae387b562@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 12/20/21 3:11 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 12/19/2021 4:48 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> 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. > > I used your block/for-next branch and implemented queue_rqs in NVMe/RDMA > but it was never called using the t/io_uring test nor fio with > iodepth_batch=32 flag with io_uring engine. > > Any idea what might be the issue ? > > I installed fio from sources.. The two main restrictions right now are a scheduler and shared tags, are you using any of those? -- Jens Axboe