On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 22-12-20 11:18:22, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sat 19-12-20 11:14:27, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:44:12PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Currently when non-mq aware IO scheduler (BFQ, mq-deadline) is used for
> > > > a queue with multiple HW queues, the performance it rather bad. The
> > > > problem is that these IO schedulers use queue-wide locking and their
> > > > dispatch function does not respect the hctx it is passed in and returns
> > > > any request it finds appropriate. Thus locality of request access is
> > > > broken and dispatch from multiple CPUs just contends on IO scheduler
> > > > locks. For these IO schedulers there's little point in dispatching from
> > > > multiple CPUs. Instead dispatch always only from a single CPU to limit
> > > > contention.
> > > >
> > > > Below is a comparison of dbench runs on XFS filesystem where the storage
> > > > is a raid card with 64 HW queues and to it attached a single rotating
> > > > disk. BFQ is used as IO scheduler:
> > > >
> > > > clients MQ SQ MQ-Patched
> > > > Amean 1 39.12 (0.00%) 43.29 * -10.67%* 36.09 * 7.74%*
> > > > Amean 2 128.58 (0.00%) 101.30 * 21.22%* 96.14 * 25.23%*
> > > > Amean 4 577.42 (0.00%) 494.47 * 14.37%* 508.49 * 11.94%*
> > > > Amean 8 610.95 (0.00%) 363.86 * 40.44%* 362.12 * 40.73%*
> > > > Amean 16 391.78 (0.00%) 261.49 * 33.25%* 282.94 * 27.78%*
> > > > Amean 32 324.64 (0.00%) 267.71 * 17.54%* 233.00 * 28.23%*
> > > > Amean 64 295.04 (0.00%) 253.02 * 14.24%* 242.37 * 17.85%*
> > > > Amean 512 10281.61 (0.00%) 10211.16 * 0.69%* 10447.53 * -1.61%*
> > > >
> > > > Numbers are times so lower is better. MQ is stock 5.10-rc6 kernel. SQ is
> > > > the same kernel with megaraid_sas.host_tagset_enable=0 so that the card
> > > > advertises just a single HW queue. MQ-Patched is a kernel with this
> > > > patch applied.
> > > >
> > > > You can see multiple hardware queues heavily hurt performance in
> > > > combination with BFQ. The patch restores the performance.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > block/blk-mq.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > block/kyber-iosched.c | 1 +
> > > > include/linux/elevator.h | 2 ++
> > > > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > > index 57d0461f2be5..6d80054c231b 100644
> > > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > > @@ -1663,6 +1663,31 @@ void blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, bool async)
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_run_hw_queue);
> > > >
> > > > +static struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *blk_mq_sq_iosched_hctx(struct request_queue *q)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator;
> > > > + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The queue has multiple hardware queues but uses IO scheduler that
> > > > + * does not respect hardware queues when dispatching? This is not a
> > > > + * great setup but it can be sensible when we have a single rotational
> > > > + * disk behind a raid card. Just don't bother with multiple HW queues
> > > > + * and dispatch from hctx for the current CPU since running multiple
> > > > + * queues just causes lock contention inside the scheduler and
> > > > + * pointless cache bouncing because the hctx is not respected by the IO
> > > > + * scheduler's dispatch function anyway.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (q->nr_hw_queues > 1 && e && e->type->ops.dispatch_request &&
> > > > + !(e->type->elevator_features & ELEVATOR_F_MQ_AWARE)) {
> > > > + hctx = blk_mq_map_queue_type(q, HCTX_TYPE_DEFAULT,
> > > > + raw_smp_processor_id());
> > > > + if (!blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx))
> > > > + return hctx;
> > > > + }
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * blk_mq_run_hw_queues - Run all hardware queues in a request queue.
> > > > * @q: Pointer to the request queue to run.
> > > > @@ -1673,6 +1698,12 @@ void blk_mq_run_hw_queues(struct request_queue *q, bool async)
> > > > struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
> > > > int i;
> > > >
> > > > + hctx = blk_mq_sq_iosched_hctx(q);
> > > > + if (hctx) {
> > > > + blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, async);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This approach looks reasonable, just wondering which code path is wrt.
> > > blk_mq_run_hw_queues() improvement by this patch.
> > >
> > > Since ed5dd6a67d5e ("scsi: core: Only re-run queue in scsi_end_request() if device
> > > queue is busy") is merged, blk_mq_run_hw_queues() is only called from scsi_end_request()
> > > when the scsi device is busy for megaraid.
> > >
> > > Another one is bfq_schedule_dispatch(), in which blk_mq_run_hw_queues()
> > > is still be called, if that is the reason, maybe it is easier to optimize
> > > bfq_schedule_dispatch() by avoiding to call blk_mq_run_hw_queues().
> >
> > That's a good question. Tracing shows that with dbench I'm seeing *lots*
> > (about 23000/s) blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() calls, mostly from
> > __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(). This drops to "only" about 2000 calls/s with
> > my patches applied.
> >
> > So it means BFQ decided not to dispatch any request (e.g. because it is
> > idling for more IO from the same process) and that triggers that path in
> > __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() that just queues the dispatch again. So blk-mq
> > ends up polling BFQ rather heavily for requests it doesn't want to give out
> > :). In this sense my patch just makes the real problem less severe.
> >
> > I've noticed that if ->has_work() returned false, we would not end up
> > calling blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues(). But for BFQ ->has_work() often
> > returns true because it has requests queued but ->dispatch_request()
> > doesn't dispatch anything because of other scheduling constraints. And so
> > we end up calling blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() because if we allocated
> > dispatch budget and didn't dispatch in the end, we could have blocked
> > dispatch from another hctx and so now need to rerun that hctx to dispatch
> > possibly queued requests.
> >
> > I was thinking how we could possibly improve this. One obvious possibility
> > is to modify IO schedulers so that their ->has_work() does not return true
> > if they later decide not to dispatch anything. However this can happen both
> > to mq-deadline and BFQ and for either of them determining whether they will
> > dispatch a request or not is about as expensive as dispatching it. So it
> > doesn't seem very appealing for these IO schedulers to do the work twice or
> > to somehow cache the request found. What seems more workable would be for
> > blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget() to return whether rerunning the queue might be
> > needed or not (for SCSI, which is the only subsystem using budgeting, this
> > means returning whether we were currently at queue_depth) and use that
> > information in __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(). I'll experiment with a patch I
> > guess...
>
> OK, so I was experimenting more with this. I've implemented my idea of
> ->put_budget() returning whether it is needed to rerun the queue (and then
> using this inside __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched()). This indeed mostly got rid
> of calls of blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() from __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched().
> This patch on its own however was not enough to fix the regression when
> megaraid_sas started using multiple HW queues - it got back about half of
> the regression. There was still enough contention and cache bouncing from
> the remaining blk_mq_run_hw_queues() calls - mostly called when a request was
> completed and there was no request currently running (this happens in
> bfq_completed_request -> bfq_schedule_dispatch path). And these calls seem
> to be really needed AFAICT. Also I did test run with both the previous
> series and "budget" patch applied and it didn't show any significant
> difference to just the previous series. So although conceptually the patch
> makes sense and reduces calls to blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues(), I'm not sure
> it is worth it given it brings no measurable benefit. What do people think?
I think it is good to fix the regression by the MQ_AWARE way first.
>
> Honza
>
> PS: I've noticed that my original patch is slightly buggy and we probably
> need to run not only the hctx on current CPU but also any hctx with
> non-empty ->dispatch list. Otherwise we could stall some requests. I'll fix
> that up on next posting.
Yeah, the MQ_AWARE way should only be applied to dispatch from scheduler
queue.
Thanks,
Ming
