On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:52:37PM +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Bart Van Assche > <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/01/2016 03:31 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: > >> > >> I reduced the ISR workload by one third in-order to reduce the time > >> that is spent per CPU in interrupt context, even then I am observing > >> softlockups. > >> > >> As I mentioned before only same single CPU in the set of CPUs(enabled > >> in affinity_hint) is busy with handling the interrupts from > >> corresponding IRQx. I have done below experiment in driver to limit > >> these softlockups/hardlockups. But I am not sure whether it is > >> reasonable to do this in driver, > >> > >> Experiment: > >> If the CPUx is continuously busy with handling the remote CPUs > >> (enabled in the corresponding IRQ's affinity_hint) IO works by 1/4th > >> of the HBA queue depth in the same ISR context then enable a flag > >> called 'change_smp_affinity' for this IRQ. Also created a thread with > >> will poll for this flag for every IRQ's (enabled by driver) for every > >> second. If this thread see that this flag is enabled for any IRQ then > >> it will write next CPU number from the CPUs enabled in the IRQ's > >> affinity_hint to the IRQ's smp_affinity procfs attribute using > >> 'call_usermodehelper()' API. > >> > >> This to make sure that interrupts are not processed by same single CPU > >> all the time and to make the other CPUs to handle the interrupts if > >> the current CPU is continuously busy with handling the other CPUs IO > >> interrupts. > >> > >> For example consider a system which has 8 logical CPUs and one MSIx > >> vector enabled (called IRQ 120) in driver, HBA queue depth as 8K. > >> then IRQ's procfs attributes will be > >> IRQ# 120, affinity_hint=0xff, smp_affinity=0x00 > >> > >> After starting heavy IOs, we will observe that only CPU0 will be busy > >> with handling the interrupts. This experiment driver will change the > >> smp_affinity to next CPU number i.e. 0x01 (using cmd 'echo 0x01 > > >> /proc/irq/120/smp_affinity', driver issue's this cmd using > >> call_usermodehelper() API) if it observes that CPU0 is continuously > >> processing more than 2K of IOs replies of other CPUs i.e from CPU1 to > >> CPU7. > >> > >> Whether doing this kind of stuff in driver is ok? > > > > > > Hello Sreekanth, > > > > To me this sounds like something that should be implemented in the I/O > > chipset on the motherboard. If you have a look at the Intel Software > > Developer Manuals then you will see that logical destination mode supports > > round-robin interrupt delivery. However, the Linux kernel selects physical > > destination mode on systems with more than eight logical CPUs (see also > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c). > > > > I'm not sure the maintainers of the interrupt subsystem would welcome code > > that emulates round-robin interrupt delivery. So your best option is > > probably to minimize the amount of work that is done in interrupt context > > and to move as much work as possible out of interrupt context in such a way > > that it can be spread over multiple CPU cores, e.g. by using > > queue_work_on(). > > > > Bart. > > Bart, > > Thanks a lot for providing lot of inputs and valuable information on this issue. > > Today I got one more observation. i.e. I am not observing any lockups > if I use 1.0.4-6 versioned irqbalance. > Since this versioned irqbalance is able to shift the load to other CPU > when one CPU is heavily loaded. > This isn't happening because irqbalance is no longer able to shift load between cpus, its happening because of commit 996ee2cf7a4d10454de68ac4978adb5cf22850f8. irqs with higher interrupt volumes sould be balanced to a specific cpu core, rather than to a cache domain to maximize cpu-local cache hit rates. Prior to that change we balanced to a cache domain and your workload didn't have to serialize multiple interrupts to a single core. My suggestion to you is to use the --policyscript option to make your storage irqs get balanced to the cache level, rather than the core level. That should return the behavior to what you want. Neil > while running heavy IOs, for first few seconds here is my driver irq's > attributes, > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ioc number = 0 > number of core processors = 24 > msix vector count = 2 > number of cores per msix vector = 16 > > > msix index = 0, irq number = 50, smp_affinity = 000040 > affinity_hint = 000fff > msix index = 1, irq number = 51, smp_affinity = 001000 > affinity_hint = fff000 > > We have set affinity for 2 msix vectors and 24 core processors > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > After few seconds it observed that CPU12 is heavily loaded for IRQ 51 > and it changed the smp_affinity to CPU21 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ioc number = 0 > number of core processors = 24 > msix vector count = 2 > number of cores per msix vector = 16 > > > msix index = 0, irq number = 50, smp_affinity = 000040 > affinity_hint = 000fff > msix index = 1, irq number = 51, smp_affinity = 200000 > affinity_hint = fff000 > > We have set affinity for 2 msix vectors and 24 core processors > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Where as irqblanance versioned 1.0.9 is not able to shift the load to > the other CPUs enabled in the affinity_hint (even when subset policy > is enabled) and so I was observing the softlocks/hardlockups. > > Here I have attached irqbalance logs with debug enabled for both versions. > > Thanks, > Sreekanth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
