All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: reduce kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on() CPU consumption
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:59:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53b6fac0-10cb-80ab-16e7-ee851b720d5e@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YbiyhcbZmnNbed3O@infradead.org>

On 12/14/21 8:04 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:53:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Dexuan reports that he's seeing spikes of very heavy CPU utilization when
>> running 24 disks and using the 'none' scheduler. This happens off the
>> flush path, because SCSI requires the queue to be restarted async, and
>> hence we're hammering on mod_delayed_work_on() to ensure that the work
>> item gets run appropriately.
>>
>> What we care about here is that the queue is run, and we don't need to
>> repeatedly re-arm the timer associated with the delayed work item. If we
>> check if the work item is pending upfront, then we don't really need to do
>> anything else. This is safe as theh work pending bit is cleared before a
>> work item is started.
>>
>> The only potential caveat here is if we have callers with wildly different
>> timeouts specified. That's generally not the case, so don't think we need
>> to care for that case.
> 
> So why not do a non-delayed queue_work for that case?  Might be good
> to get the scsi and workqueue maintaines involved to understand the
> issue a bit better first.

We can probably get by with doing just that, and just ignore if a delayed
work timer is already running.

Dexuan, can you try this one?

diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 1378d084c770..c1833f95cb97 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kblockd_schedule_work);
 int kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on(int cpu, struct delayed_work *dwork,
 				unsigned long delay)
 {
+	if (!delay)
+		return queue_work_on(cpu, kblockd_workqueue, &dwork->work);
 	return mod_delayed_work_on(cpu, kblockd_workqueue, dwork, delay);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on);

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-14 16:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-14 14:53 [PATCH] block: reduce kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on() CPU consumption Jens Axboe
2021-12-14 15:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-14 15:59   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-12-14 20:42     ` Dexuan Cui
2021-12-15 17:40     ` Bart Van Assche
2021-12-16  7:22       ` Ming Lei

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53b6fac0-10cb-80ab-16e7-ee851b720d5e@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=decui@microsoft.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.