From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] iSCSI MQ adoption via MCS discussion Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:14:54 -0600 Message-ID: <54B42B3E.7010108@cs.wisc.edu> References: <54AD5DDD.2090808@dev.mellanox.co.il> <54AD6563.4040603@suse.de> <54ADA777.6090801@cs.wisc.edu> <54AE36CE.8020509@acm.org> <1420755361.2842.16.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <1420756142.11310.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1420757822.2842.39.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <1420759360.11310.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1420779808.21830.21.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <38CE4ECA-D155-4BF9-9D6D-E1A01ADA05E4@cs.wisc.edu> <54B01DBD.5020707@suse.de> <54B037BF.1010903@cs.wisc.edu> <54B24501.7090801@dev.mellanox.co.il> Reply-To: open-iscsi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54B24501.7090801-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: open-iscsi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: James Bottomley , lsf-pc-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Bart Van Assche , linux-scsi , target-devel List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 01/11/2015 03:40 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > On 1/9/2015 10:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote: >> On 01/09/2015 12:28 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> On 01/09/2015 07:00 PM, Michael Christie wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:22 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:57 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:29 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 14:16 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The point is that a simple session wide counter for command sequence >>>>>>> number assignment is significantly less overhead than all of the >>>>>>> overhead associated with running a full multipath stack atop >>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>> sessions. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see how that's relevant to issue speed, which was the >>>>>> measure we >>>>>> were using: The layers above are just a hopper. As long as they're >>>>>> loaded, the MQ lower layer can issue at full speed. So as long as >>>>>> the >>>>>> multipath hopper is efficient enough to keep the queues loaded >>>>>> there's >>>>>> no speed degradation. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with a sequence point inside the MQ issue layer is >>>>>> that it >>>>>> can cause a stall that reduces the issue speed. so the counter >>>>>> sequence >>>>>> point causes a degraded issue speed over the multipath hopper >>>>>> approach >>>>>> above even if the multipath approach has a higher CPU overhead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, if the system is close to 100% cpu already, *then* the multipath >>>>>> overhead will try to take CPU power we don't have and cause a >>>>>> stall, but >>>>>> it's only in the flat out CPU case. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not to mention that our iSCSI/iSER initiator is already taking a >>>>>>> session >>>>>>> wide lock when sending outgoing PDUs, so adding a session wide >>>>>>> counter >>>>>>> isn't adding any additional synchronization overhead vs. what's >>>>>>> already >>>>>>> in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll leave it up to the iSER people to decide whether they're redoing >>>>>> this as part of the MQ work. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Session wide command sequence number synchronization isn't >>>>> something to >>>>> be removed as part of the MQ work. It's a iSCSI/iSER protocol >>>>> requirement. >>>>> >>>>> That is, the expected + maximum sequence numbers are returned as >>>>> part of >>>>> every response PDU, which the initiator uses to determine when the >>>>> command sequence number window is open so new non-immediate >>>>> commands may >>>>> be sent to the target. >>>>> >>>>> So, given some manner of session wide synchronization is required >>>>> between different contexts for the existing single connection case to >>>>> update the command sequence number and check when the window opens, >>>>> it's >>>>> a fallacy to claim MC/S adds some type of new initiator specific >>>>> synchronization overhead vs. single connection code. >>>> >>>> I think you are assuming we are leaving the iscsi code as it is today. >>>> >>>> For the non-MCS mq session per CPU design, we would be allocating and >>>> binding the session and its resources to specific CPUs. They would only >>>> be accessed by the threads on that one CPU, so we get our >>>> serialization/synchronization from that. That is why we are saying we >>>> do not need something like atomic_t/spin_locks for the sequence number >>>> handling for this type of implementation. >>>> >>> Wouldn't that need to be coordinated with the networking layer? >> >> Yes. >> >>> Doesn't it do the same thing, matching TX/RX queues to CPUs? >> >> Yes. >> > > Hey Hannes, Mike, > > I would say there is no need for specific coordination from iSCSI PoV. > This is exactly what flow steering is designed for. As I see it, in > order to get the TX/RX to match rings, the user can attach 5-tuple rules > (using standard ethtool) to steer packets to the right rings. > > Sagi. > >>> If so, wouldn't we decrease bandwidth by restricting things to one CPU? >> >> We have a session or connection per CPU though, so we end up hitting the >> same problem you talked about last year where one hctx (iscsi session or >> connection's socket or nic hw queue) could get overloaded. This is what >> I meant in my original mail where iscsi would rely on whatever blk/mq >> load balancers we end up implementing at that layer to balance requests >> across hctxs. >> > > I'm not sure I understand, > > The submission flow is CPU bound. In the current single queue model > both CPU X and CPU Y will end up using a single socket. In the > multi-queue solution, CPU X will go to socket X and CPU Y will go to > socket Y. This is equal to what we have today (if only CPU X is active) > or better (if more CPUs are active). > > Am I missing something? I did not take Hannes's comment as comparing what we have today vs the proposal. I thought he was referring to the problem he was talking about at LSF last year and saying there could be cases where we want to spread IO across CPUs/queues and some cases where we would want to execute on the CPU we were originally submitted on. I was just saying the iscsi layer would not control that and would rely on the blk/mq layer to handle this or tell us what to do similar to what we do for the rq_affinity setting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-iscsi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-iscsi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.