On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:30:04AM +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Thanks for reply. >> >> Today I tried with setting balance_level to 'cache' for mpt3sas driver >> IRQ's using below policy script and used 1.0.9 versioned irqbalance, >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> #!/bin/bash >> # Header >> # Linux Shell Scripting for Irq Balance Policy select for mpt3sas driver >> # >> >> # Command Line Args >> #IRQ_PATH -> PATH >> #IRQ_NUMBER -> IRQ Number >> declare -r IRQ_PATH=$1 >> declare -r IRQ_NUMBER=$2 >> >> if [ -d /proc/irq/$IRQ_NUMBER ]; then >> mpt3sas_irq=(`ls /proc/irq/$IRQ_NUMBER/ | grep mpt3sas | wc -l`) >> if [ $mpt3sas_irq == 1 ]; then >> echo "hintpolicy=subset" >> echo "balance_level=cache" >> fi >> fi >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> But still I don't see any load shift happening between the CPUs and >> still observing hardlockups. >> >> Here I have attached the irqbalance logs. >> >> Thanks, >> Sreekanth > > Hey there- > So, looking at your logs, your script is working correctly: > Package 0: numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 0003f03f (load 0) > Cache domain 0: numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00001001 (load 0) > CPU number 0 numa_node is 0 (load 0) > Interrupt 150 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 174 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 198 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 126 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 102 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 77 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > CPU number 12 numa_node is 0 (load 0) > Interrupt 138 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 162 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 186 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 114 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 90 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 65 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 51 node_num is -1 (storage/1) > Interrupt 31 node_num is 0 (legacy/1) > ... > Package 1: numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00fc0fc0 (load 0) > Cache domain 6: numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00040040 (load 0) > CPU number 6 numa_node is 0 (load 0) > Interrupt 149 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 173 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 197 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 125 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 101 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 76 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > CPU number 18 numa_node is 0 (load 0) > Interrupt 137 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 161 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 185 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 113 node_num is 0 (storage/1) > Interrupt 89 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 64 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1) > Interrupt 50 node_num is -1 (storage/1) > > > irqbalance correctly decided to balance irqs 50 and 51 to the cache level, which > is good. The only other thing I would check though is the affinity_hint those > irqs are exporting. With an affinity hint set to subset, if the exported hint > only intersects the cache domain cpu set at one cpu, you will still only get > affinity for that one cpu. You may want to consider changing the hintpolicy for > those interrupts to ignore, to ensure that you have affinity for two cpus. Hi Neil, I changed the hint policy to ignore for these IRQs but still I observe only one CPU is busy with interrupt processing and eventually I am observe softlockups. Thanks, Sreekanth > > Beyond that though, the kernel is in control of irq delivery. Normally the > configured hardware delivery policy is to select the highest priority cpu that > isn't already servicing an interrupt (to maximize cache hit rates). If the irq > rate is sufficiently slow however, it will always hit the same cpu, because it > isn't blocked by another interrupt. > > Best > Neil > -- 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
