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. > > > > > Either there is issue introduced in part_round_stats() recently since I > > remember that this counter should have been read at most one time during > > one jiffies in IO path, or the implementation of blk_mq_in_flight() can > become > > a bit heavy in your environment. Jens may have idea about this issue. > > > > And I guess the lockup issue may be avoided by this approach now? > > NO. For CPU Lock up we need irq poll interface to quit from ISR loop of > the driver. Actually after this patchset starts working, the request's completion is done basically on the submission CPU. Seems all CPU shouldn't have been overloaded, given your system has so many msix irq vectors and enough CPU cores. I am interested in this problem too, but I think we have to fix the io accounting issue first. Once the accounting issue(which may cause too much CPU consumed up in interrupt handler) is fixed, let's see if there is still the lockup issue. If there is, 'perf' may tell us something. But from your previous perf trace, looks only the accounting symbols are listed in hot path. Thanks, Ming
