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 EC5EDC433EF for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233496AbhLPRQj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:16:39 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56514 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233480AbhLPRQj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:16:39 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB0DC061574 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id y16so36139890ioc.8 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:16:38 -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=VYdKMILa/6GBYy+rmTMYB4+FtE18m9Ox443UhU/yax8=; b=lEgdR7H1wg5ZKORvCsD3AD+blEmVO0vkTYIzXDhFOgwmrgiymQRAqhisABMcdP5ns9 Mu3pyPiADgouB7sjmMmNbsi+inM3nJq97PsDjRW1BlcDfW1/R9/+nW8naBb/WW9sAQt1 AaX6Ep/2Kqi94fE+pY6T87PmfUx0YaQPAoleR/vXru66D1x/Z0e0s51Qg10bzDQUwzbZ CDa2wSOfFmtpJQE9uSnpO3j3Dh41PlBsCQf0PKb7ZtKDRX9FNqujyQu++sAP6haF+3LI v2bTRNT8RaGciMKa/VvD88UKEMiiO9uj4sRXn/vqWwddXJZrug9CDFajt31G9tOdKBeN mWRg== 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=VYdKMILa/6GBYy+rmTMYB4+FtE18m9Ox443UhU/yax8=; b=gsBFAMNn6xOSJlMDFPxIgUlg6hHb3pGZ6DiFmyYAy5BdJNG03XbuBxzxSdVNuFqO5g mGJHzLzlEOxBk1xYts04FJgj00fbhA14bIGEyla0MqNEB2KSsehU8Dc7Mxttlbrp9k0o im573DkF1eVzW+dcASQuTxg59eYivD0Jqmd8PN+fRmAMYyYpM4KUAaPPDhXRuNw8b8kr bra4pVFamGP3PitQ2r+1wS/tfiNp1X7LMx5LX/QKlpm8iTwhF3bxe1W2eCY+ACxo26Kq Id4FnQ9OGub/7owLQNCg36ace7JFV+mVGBiUOyhXKohE5UdKT7vsdDsC4XmMC4Y4TyWE NXYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rhffg+xFPpaxJOdOZQJ4Jrir9nemMUG4anMOLxncYVC1cPWVJ clfbA6X8uhchRDoFM/Nc1nN6Tg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeCMurthsyOq1gH0dcvtrLgQubFaV9NeBGGbOxhEHfj+g3e7efNQmUevwBhs+5VSJgoPVkGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2c83:: with SMTP id i3mr10084794iow.54.1639674998086; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.30] ([207.135.234.126]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k13sm3922235iow.45.2021.12.16.09.16.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:16:37 -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 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> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:16:37 -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: <5ee0e257-651a-ec44-7ca3-479438a737fb@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 12/16/21 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. > Don't you think it will be a good idea to not depend on applications and > batch according to some kernel mechanism ? > > Wait till X requests or Y usecs (first condition to be fulfilled) before > submitting the batch to LLD. > > Like we do with adaptive completion coalescing/moderation for capable > devices. This is how plugging used to work way back in the day. The problem is that you then introduce per-device state, which can cause contention. That's why the plug is a pure stack based entity now. -- Jens Axboe