> -----Original Message----- > From: Ming Lei [mailto:ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 11:01 AM > To: Kashyap Desai > Cc: Hannes Reinecke; Jens Axboe; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christoph > Hellwig; Mike Snitzer; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arun Easi; Omar Sandoval; > Martin K . Petersen; James Bottomley; Christoph Hellwig; Don Brace; Peter > Rivera; Paolo Bonzini; Laurence Oberman > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] blk-mq/scsi-mq: support global tags & introduce > force_blk_mq > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:00:57AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi Kashyap, > > > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 02:12:16PM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ming Lei [mailto:ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:01 AM > > > > To: Kashyap Desai > > > > Cc: Hannes Reinecke; Jens Axboe; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > Christoph Hellwig; Mike Snitzer; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arun > > > > Easi; Omar > > > Sandoval; > > > > Martin K . Petersen; James Bottomley; Christoph Hellwig; Don > > > > Brace; > > > Peter > > > > Rivera; Paolo Bonzini; Laurence Oberman > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] blk-mq/scsi-mq: support global tags & > > > > introduce force_blk_mq > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:28:23AM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Ming Lei [mailto:ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:23 PM > > > > > > To: Hannes Reinecke > > > > > > Cc: Kashyap Desai; Jens Axboe; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > > > Christoph Hellwig; Mike Snitzer; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > > > Arun Easi; Omar > > > > > Sandoval; > > > > > > Martin K . Petersen; James Bottomley; Christoph Hellwig; Don > > > > > > Brace; > > > > > Peter > > > > > > Rivera; Paolo Bonzini; Laurence Oberman > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] blk-mq/scsi-mq: support global tags & > > > > > > introduce force_blk_mq > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:00:29AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > > > > > On 02/07/2018 03:14 PM, Kashyap Desai wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: Ming Lei [mailto:ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:53 PM > > > > > > > >> To: Hannes Reinecke > > > > > > > >> Cc: Kashyap Desai; Jens Axboe; > > > > > > > >> linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christoph Hellwig; Mike > > > > > > > >> Snitzer; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arun Easi; Omar > > > > > > > > Sandoval; > > > > > > > >> Martin K . Petersen; James Bottomley; Christoph Hellwig; > > > > > > > >> Don Brace; > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > >> Rivera; Paolo Bonzini; Laurence Oberman > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] blk-mq/scsi-mq: support global > > > > > > > >> tags & introduce force_blk_mq > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:50:21AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Hi all, > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> [ .. ] > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Could you share us your patch for enabling > > > > > > > >>>>> global_tags/MQ on > > > > > > > >>>> megaraid_sas > > > > > > > >>>>> so that I can reproduce your test? > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> See below perf top data. "bt_iter" is consuming 4 > > > > > > > >>>>>> times more > > > > > CPU. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Could you share us what the IOPS/CPU utilization > > > > > > > >>>>> effect is after > > > > > > > >>>> applying the > > > > > > > >>>>> patch V2? And your test script? > > > > > > > >>>> Regarding CPU utilization, I need to test one more time. > > > > > > > >>>> Currently system is in used. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> I run below fio test on total 24 SSDs expander attached. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> numactl -N 1 fio jbod.fio --rw=randread --iodepth=64 > > > > > > > >>>> --bs=4k --ioengine=libaio --rw=randread > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Performance dropped from 1.6 M IOPs to 770K IOPs. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>> This is basically what we've seen with earlier iterations. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Hi Hannes, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> As I mentioned in another mail[1], Kashyap's patch has a > > > > > > > >> big issue, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > >> causes only reply queue 0 used. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=151793204014631&w=2 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> So could you guys run your performance test again after > > > > > > > >> fixing the > > > > > > > > patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ming - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried after change you requested. Performance drop is > > > > > > > > still > > > > > unresolved. > > > > > > > > From 1.6 M IOPS to 770K IOPS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See below data. All 24 reply queue is in used correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IRQs / 1 second(s) > > > > > > > > IRQ# TOTAL NODE0 NODE1 NAME > > > > > > > > 360 16422 0 16422 IR-PCI-MSI 70254653-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 364 15980 0 15980 IR-PCI-MSI 70254657-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 362 15979 0 15979 IR-PCI-MSI 70254655-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 345 15696 0 15696 IR-PCI-MSI 70254638-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 341 15659 0 15659 IR-PCI-MSI 70254634-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 369 15656 0 15656 IR-PCI-MSI 70254662-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 359 15650 0 15650 IR-PCI-MSI 70254652-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 358 15596 0 15596 IR-PCI-MSI 70254651-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 350 15574 0 15574 IR-PCI-MSI 70254643-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 342 15532 0 15532 IR-PCI-MSI 70254635-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 344 15527 0 15527 IR-PCI-MSI 70254637-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 346 15485 0 15485 IR-PCI-MSI 70254639-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 361 15482 0 15482 IR-PCI-MSI 70254654-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 348 15467 0 15467 IR-PCI-MSI 70254641-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 368 15463 0 15463 IR-PCI-MSI 70254661-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 354 15420 0 15420 IR-PCI-MSI 70254647-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 351 15378 0 15378 IR-PCI-MSI 70254644-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 352 15377 0 15377 IR-PCI-MSI 70254645-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 356 15348 0 15348 IR-PCI-MSI 70254649-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 337 15344 0 15344 IR-PCI-MSI 70254630-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 343 15320 0 15320 IR-PCI-MSI 70254636-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 355 15266 0 15266 IR-PCI-MSI 70254648-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 335 15247 0 15247 IR-PCI-MSI 70254628-edge megasas > > > > > > > > 363 15233 0 15233 IR-PCI-MSI 70254656-edge megasas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Average: CPU %usr %nice %sys %iowait > > > > > %steal > > > > > > > > %irq %soft %guest %gnice %idle > > > > > > > > Average: 18 3.80 0.00 14.78 10.08 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.01 0.00 0.00 67.33 > > > > > > > > Average: 19 3.26 0.00 15.35 10.62 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.03 0.00 0.00 66.74 > > > > > > > > Average: 20 3.42 0.00 14.57 10.67 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.84 0.00 0.00 67.50 > > > > > > > > Average: 21 3.19 0.00 15.60 10.75 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.16 0.00 0.00 66.30 > > > > > > > > Average: 22 3.58 0.00 15.15 10.66 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.51 0.00 0.00 67.11 > > > > > > > > Average: 23 3.34 0.00 15.36 10.63 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 66.50 > > > > > > > > Average: 24 3.50 0.00 14.58 10.93 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.85 0.00 0.00 67.13 > > > > > > > > Average: 25 3.20 0.00 14.68 10.86 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.31 0.00 0.00 66.95 > > > > > > > > Average: 26 3.27 0.00 14.80 10.70 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 67.55 > > > > > > > > Average: 27 3.58 0.00 15.36 10.80 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.79 0.00 0.00 66.48 > > > > > > > > Average: 28 3.46 0.00 15.17 10.46 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.32 0.00 0.00 67.59 > > > > > > > > Average: 29 3.34 0.00 14.42 10.72 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.34 0.00 0.00 68.18 > > > > > > > > Average: 30 3.34 0.00 15.08 10.70 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.89 0.00 0.00 66.99 > > > > > > > > Average: 31 3.26 0.00 15.33 10.47 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 67.61 > > > > > > > > Average: 32 3.21 0.00 14.80 10.61 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 67.67 > > > > > > > > Average: 33 3.40 0.00 13.88 10.55 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.02 0.00 0.00 68.15 > > > > > > > > Average: 34 3.74 0.00 17.41 10.61 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.51 0.00 0.00 63.73 > > > > > > > > Average: 35 3.35 0.00 14.37 10.74 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.84 0.00 0.00 67.71 > > > > > > > > Average: 36 0.54 0.00 1.77 0.00 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.69 > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > Average: 54 3.60 0.00 15.17 10.39 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.22 0.00 0.00 66.62 > > > > > > > > Average: 55 3.33 0.00 14.85 10.55 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.96 0.00 0.00 67.31 > > > > > > > > Average: 56 3.40 0.00 15.19 10.54 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.74 0.00 0.00 67.13 > > > > > > > > Average: 57 3.41 0.00 13.98 10.78 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 67.73 > > > > > > > > Average: 58 3.32 0.00 15.16 10.52 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.01 0.00 0.00 66.99 > > > > > > > > Average: 59 3.17 0.00 15.80 10.35 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.86 0.00 0.00 66.80 > > > > > > > > Average: 60 3.00 0.00 14.63 10.59 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 67.80 > > > > > > > > Average: 61 3.34 0.00 14.70 10.66 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.00 66.97 > > > > > > > > Average: 62 3.34 0.00 15.29 10.56 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.89 0.00 0.00 66.92 > > > > > > > > Average: 63 3.29 0.00 14.51 10.72 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.85 0.00 0.00 67.62 > > > > > > > > Average: 64 3.48 0.00 15.31 10.65 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 66.60 > > > > > > > > Average: 65 3.34 0.00 14.36 10.80 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 67.39 > > > > > > > > Average: 66 3.13 0.00 14.94 10.70 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 67.13 > > > > > > > > Average: 67 3.06 0.00 15.56 10.69 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.82 0.00 0.00 66.88 > > > > > > > > Average: 68 3.33 0.00 14.98 10.61 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.81 0.00 0.00 67.27 > > > > > > > > Average: 69 3.20 0.00 15.43 10.70 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.82 0.00 0.00 66.85 > > > > > > > > Average: 70 3.34 0.00 17.14 10.59 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 65.92 > > > > > > > > Average: 71 3.41 0.00 14.94 10.56 > > > > > 0.00 > > > > > > > > 0.00 3.41 0.00 0.00 67.69 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perf top - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 64.33% [kernel] [k] bt_iter > > > > > > > > 4.86% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter > > > > > > > > 4.23% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit > > > > > > > > 2.40% [kernel] [k] > > > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > > > > > 1.09% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_any_bit_set > > > > > > > > 0.71% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_queue_clear > > > > > > > > 0.63% [kernel] [k] find_next_bit > > > > > > > > 0.54% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah. So we're spending quite some time in trying to find a > > > > > > > free > > > tag. > > > > > > > I guess this is due to every queue starting at the same > > > > > > > position trying to find a free tag, which inevitably leads to a > contention. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, the above trace means that blk_mq_in_flight() may be the > > > > > bottleneck, > > > > > > and looks not related with tag allocation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kashyap, could you run your performance test again after > > > > > > disabling > > > > > iostat by > > > > > > the following command on all test devices and killing all > > > > > > utilities > > > > > which may > > > > > > read iostat(/proc/diskstats, ...)? > > > > > > > > > > > > echo 0 > /sys/block/sdN/queue/iostat > > > > > > > > > > Ming - After changing iostat = 0 , I see performance issue is > > > resolved. > > > > > > > > > > Below is perf top output after iostats = 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 23.45% [kernel] [k] bt_iter > > > > > 2.27% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter > > > > > 2.18% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit > > > > > 2.06% [megaraid_sas] [k] complete_cmd_fusion > > > > > 1.87% [kernel] [k] clflush_cache_range > > > > > 1.70% [kernel] [k] dma_pte_clear_level > > > > > 1.56% [kernel] [k] __domain_mapping > > > > > 1.55% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_queue_clear > > > > > 1.30% [kernel] [k] gup_pgd_range > > > > > > > > Hi Kashyap, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your test and update. > > > > > > > > Looks blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() is still sampled by perf even > > > > though iostats is disabled, and I guess there may be utilities > > > > which are > > > reading iostats > > > > a bit frequently. > > > > > > I will be doing some more testing and post you my findings. > > > > I will find sometime this weekend to see if I can cook a patch to > > address this issue of io accounting. > > Hi Kashyap, > > Please test the top 5 patches in the following tree to see if megaraid_sas's > performance is OK: > > https://github.com/ming1/linux/commits/v4.15-for-next-global-tags- > v2 > > This tree is made by adding these 5 patches against patchset V2. > Ming - I applied 5 patches on top of V2 and behavior is still unchanged. Below is perf top data. (1000K IOPS) 34.58% [kernel] [k] bt_iter 2.96% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_any_bit_set 2.77% [kernel] [k] bt_iter_global_tags 1.75% [megaraid_sas] [k] complete_cmd_fusion 1.62% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_queue_clear 1.62% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 1.51% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_run_hw_queue 1.45% [kernel] [k] gup_pgd_range 1.31% [kernel] [k] irq_entries_start 1.29% fio [.] __fio_gettime 1.13% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 0.95% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath 0.92% [kernel] [k] scsi_queue_rq 0.91% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_run_hw_queues 0.85% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_get_request 0.81% [kernel] [k] switch_mm_irqs_off 0.78% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_io_fusion 0.77% [kernel] [k] __schedule 0.73% [kernel] [k] update_load_avg 0.69% [kernel] [k] fput 0.65% [kernel] [k] scsi_dispatch_cmd 0.64% fio [.] fio_libaio_event 0.53% [kernel] [k] do_io_submit 0.52% [kernel] [k] read_tsc 0.51% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_and_issue_cmd_fusion 0.51% [kernel] [k] scsi_softirq_done 0.50% [kernel] [k] kobject_put 0.50% [kernel] [k] cpuidle_enter_state 0.49% [kernel] [k] native_write_msr 0.48% fio [.] io_completed Below is perf top data with iostat=0 (1400K IOPS) 4.87% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_any_bit_set 2.93% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 2.84% [megaraid_sas] [k] complete_cmd_fusion 2.38% [kernel] [k] irq_entries_start 2.36% [kernel] [k] gup_pgd_range 2.35% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_run_hw_queue 2.30% [kernel] [k] sbitmap_queue_clear 2.01% fio [.] __fio_gettime 1.78% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 1.51% [kernel] [k] scsi_queue_rq 1.43% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_run_hw_queues 1.36% [kernel] [k] fput 1.32% [kernel] [k] __schedule 1.31% [kernel] [k] switch_mm_irqs_off 1.29% [kernel] [k] update_load_avg 1.25% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_io_fusion 1.22% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath 1.03% [kernel] [k] scsi_dispatch_cmd 1.03% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_get_request 0.91% fio [.] fio_libaio_event 0.89% [kernel] [k] scsi_softirq_done 0.87% [kernel] [k] kobject_put 0.86% [kernel] [k] cpuidle_enter_state 0.84% fio [.] io_completed 0.83% [kernel] [k] do_io_submit 0.83% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_and_issue_cmd_fusion 0.83% [kernel] [k] __switch_to 0.82% [kernel] [k] read_tsc 0.80% [kernel] [k] native_write_msr 0.76% [kernel] [k] aio_comp Perf data without V2 patch applied. (1600K IOPS) 5.97% [megaraid_sas] [k] complete_cmd_fusion 5.24% [kernel] [k] bt_iter 3.28% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 2.98% [kernel] [k] irq_entries_start 2.29% fio [.] __fio_gettime 2.04% [kernel] [k] scsi_queue_rq 1.92% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_io_fusion 1.61% [kernel] [k] switch_mm_irqs_off 1.59% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_and_issue_cmd_fusion 1.41% [kernel] [k] scsi_dispatch_cmd 1.33% [kernel] [k] scsi_softirq_done 1.18% [kernel] [k] gup_pgd_range 1.18% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_complete_request 1.13% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_free_request 1.05% [kernel] [k] do_io_submit 1.04% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit 1.02% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_get_request 0.95% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_build_ldio_fusion 0.95% [kernel] [k] scsi_dec_host_busy 0.89% fio [.] get_io_u 0.88% [kernel] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64 0.84% [megaraid_sas] [k] megasas_queue_command 0.79% [kernel] [k] native_write_msr 0.77% [kernel] [k] read_tsc 0.73% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave 0.73% fio [.] fio_libaio_commit 0.72% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc 0.72% [kernel] [k] blkdev_direct_IO 0.69% [megaraid_sas] [k] MR_GetPhyParams 0.68% [kernel] [k] blk_mq_dequeue_f > If possible, please provide us the performance data without these patches and > with these patches, together with perf trace. > > The top 5 patches are for addressing the io accounting issue, and which > should be the main reason for your performance drop, even lockup in > megaraid_sas's ISR, IMO. I think performance drop is different issue. May be a side effect of the patch set. Even though we fix this perf issue, cpu lock up is completely different issue. Regarding cpu lock up, there was similar discussion and folks are finding irq poll is good method to resolve lockup. Not sure why NVME driver did not opted irq_poll, but there was extensive discussion and I am also seeing cpu lock up mainly due to multiple completion queue/reply queue is tied to single CPU. We have weighing method in irq poll to quit ISR and that is the way we can avoid lock-up. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2017-January/007724.html > > Thanks, > Ming
