On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 02:25:52AM +0000, Long Li wrote:
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] scsi: storvsc: Re-init stor_chns when a channel
> >interrupt is re-assigned
> >
> >> >@@ -621,6 +621,63 @@ static inline struct storvsc_device
> >> >*get_in_stor_device(
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >+void storvsc_change_target_cpu(struct vmbus_channel *channel, u32
> >> >+old,
> >> >+u32 new) {
> >> >+ struct storvsc_device *stor_device;
> >> >+ struct vmbus_channel *cur_chn;
> >> >+ bool old_is_alloced = false;
> >> >+ struct hv_device *device;
> >> >+ unsigned long flags;
> >> >+ int cpu;
> >> >+
> >> >+ device = channel->primary_channel ?
> >> >+ channel->primary_channel->device_obj
> >> >+ : channel->device_obj;
> >> >+ stor_device = get_out_stor_device(device);
> >> >+ if (!stor_device)
> >> >+ return;
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* See storvsc_do_io() -> get_og_chn(). */
> >> >+ spin_lock_irqsave(&device->channel->lock, flags);
> >> >+
> >> >+ /*
> >> >+ * Determines if the storvsc device has other channels assigned to
> >> >+ * the "old" CPU to update the alloced_cpus mask and the stor_chns
> >> >+ * array.
> >> >+ */
> >> >+ if (device->channel != channel && device->channel->target_cpu ==
> >> >old) {
> >> >+ cur_chn = device->channel;
> >> >+ old_is_alloced = true;
> >> >+ goto old_is_alloced;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ list_for_each_entry(cur_chn, &device->channel->sc_list, sc_list) {
> >> >+ if (cur_chn == channel)
> >> >+ continue;
> >> >+ if (cur_chn->target_cpu == old) {
> >> >+ old_is_alloced = true;
> >> >+ goto old_is_alloced;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+old_is_alloced:
> >> >+ if (old_is_alloced)
> >> >+ WRITE_ONCE(stor_device->stor_chns[old], cur_chn);
> >> >+ else
> >> >+ cpumask_clear_cpu(old, &stor_device->alloced_cpus);
> >>
> >> If the old cpu is not allocated, is it still necessary to do a cpumask_clear_cpu?
> >
> >AFAICT, this really depends on how much we "believe" in the current heuristic
> >(as implemented by get_og_chn()): ;-)
> >
> >The cpumask_clear_cpu() (and the below, dependent "flush" as well) are
> >intended to re-initialize alloced_cpus and stor_chns in order for get_og_chn()
> >to re-process/update them.
> >
> >Also, notice that (both in the current code and after this series) alloced_cpus
> >can't be offlined and get_og_chn() does rely on this property (cf., e.g., the
> >loop/check over alloced_cpus/node_mask).
> >
> >I suspect that giving up on this invariant/property would require a certain
> >amount of re-design in the heuristic/code in question...
> >
> >
> >> >@@ -1360,7 +1432,14 @@ static int storvsc_do_io(struct hv_device
> >*device,
> >> > }
> >> > }
> >> > } else {
> >> >+ spin_lock_irqsave(&device->channel->lock, flags);
> >> >+ outgoing_channel = stor_device->stor_chns[q_num];
> >> >+ if (outgoing_channel != NULL) {
> >> >+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device->channel->lock,
> >> >flags);
> >>
> >> Checking outgoing_channel again seems unnecessary. Why not just call
> >get_og_chn()?
> >
> >target_cpu_store() might have changed stor_chns (and alloced_cpus) in the
> >meantime (but before we've acquired the device's lock): the double check is
> >to make sure we have a "consistent"/an up-to-date view of stor_chns and
> >alloced_cpus.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >+ goto found_channel;
> >> >+ }
> >> > outgoing_channel = get_og_chn(stor_device, q_num);
> >> >+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device->channel->lock, flags);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> With device->channel->lock, now we have one more lock on the I/O issuing
> >path. It doesn't seem optimal as you are trying to protect the code in
> >storvsc_change_target_cpu(), this doesn't need to block concurrent I/O
> >issuers. Maybe moving to RCU is a better approach?
> >
> >I don't see this as a problem (*and I've validated such conclusion in
> >experiments, where the "patched kernel" was sometimes performing slighlty
> >better than the "unpatched kernel" and sometimes slightly
> >worse...):
> >
> >On the one hand, the stor_chns array "stabilizes" quite early after system
> >initialization in "normal" (i.e., common) situations (i.e., no channel
> >reassignments, no device hotplugs...); IOW, get_og_chn() really represents
> >the "rare and slow" path here (but not that slow!
> >after all...). Furthermore, notice that even in those "rare cases"
> >the number of "contending" channels is limited to at most 1 per 4 CPUs IIRC
> >(alloced_cpus is "sparsely populated"...).
>
> Yes I realized it is on the slow path. There is no need to optimize locks.
>
> Reviewed-by; Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review, Long. I've added the tag.
Andrea
>
> >
> >The latencies of the RCU grace period (in the order of milliseconds) would be a
> >major concern for the adoption of RCU here (at least, if we continue to
> >consider get_og_chn() as an "updater"). I'm afraid that this could be "too
> >slow" even for our slow path... ;-/
> >
> >What am I missing? ;-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Andrea
