From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO from remote numa node
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:24:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOhcOv1oOwm6fco+@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:26:53AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-07-09 09:38, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I observed that NVMe performance is very bad when running fio on one
> > CPU(aarch64) in remote numa node compared with the nvme pci numa node.
> >
> > Please see the test result[1] 327K vs. 34.9K.
> >
> > Latency trace shows that one big difference is in iommu_dma_unmap_sg(),
> > 1111 nsecs vs 25437 nsecs.
>
> Are you able to dig down further into that? iommu_dma_unmap_sg() itself
> doesn't do anything particularly special, so whatever makes a difference is
> probably happening at a lower level, and I suspect there's probably an SMMU
> involved. If for instance it turns out to go all the way down to
> __arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_consumed() because polling MMIO from the wrong
> node is slow, there's unlikely to be much you can do about that other than
> the global "go faster" knobs (iommu.strict and iommu.passthrough) with their
> associated compromises.
Follows the log of 'perf report'
1) good(run fio from cpus in the nvme's numa node)
- 34.86% 1.73% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 33.13% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 32.93% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 24.92% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 20.08% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 19.79% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 19.55% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 16.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 16.81% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 14.73% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
14.44% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
0.89% __pi_memset ▒
0.75% arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain ▒
+ 1.58% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
+ 0.71% iommu_dma_free_iova ▒
- 3.25% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 3.21% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 3.14% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 2.86% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 2.48% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 2.47% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 2.19% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
2.16% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 1.34% mempool_free ▒
+ 7.68% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 1.73% _start
2) bad(run fio from cpus not in the nvme's numa node)
- 49.25% 3.03% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.22% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.07% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 41.02% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 34.92% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 34.75% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 34.58% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 33.04% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 33.00% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 31.86% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
31.71% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.90% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
- 5.17% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 5.15% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 5.12% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 5.05% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 4.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 4.85% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 4.70% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
4.67% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.74% mempool_free ▒
+ 4.83% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 3.03% _start
Thanks,
Ming
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO from remote numa node
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:24:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOhcOv1oOwm6fco+@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:26:53AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-07-09 09:38, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I observed that NVMe performance is very bad when running fio on one
> > CPU(aarch64) in remote numa node compared with the nvme pci numa node.
> >
> > Please see the test result[1] 327K vs. 34.9K.
> >
> > Latency trace shows that one big difference is in iommu_dma_unmap_sg(),
> > 1111 nsecs vs 25437 nsecs.
>
> Are you able to dig down further into that? iommu_dma_unmap_sg() itself
> doesn't do anything particularly special, so whatever makes a difference is
> probably happening at a lower level, and I suspect there's probably an SMMU
> involved. If for instance it turns out to go all the way down to
> __arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_consumed() because polling MMIO from the wrong
> node is slow, there's unlikely to be much you can do about that other than
> the global "go faster" knobs (iommu.strict and iommu.passthrough) with their
> associated compromises.
Follows the log of 'perf report'
1) good(run fio from cpus in the nvme's numa node)
- 34.86% 1.73% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 33.13% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 32.93% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 24.92% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 20.08% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 19.79% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 19.55% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 16.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 16.81% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 14.73% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
14.44% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
0.89% __pi_memset ▒
0.75% arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain ▒
+ 1.58% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
+ 0.71% iommu_dma_free_iova ▒
- 3.25% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 3.21% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 3.14% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 2.86% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 2.48% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 2.47% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 2.19% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
2.16% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 1.34% mempool_free ▒
+ 7.68% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 1.73% _start
2) bad(run fio from cpus not in the nvme's numa node)
- 49.25% 3.03% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.22% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.07% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 41.02% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 34.92% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 34.75% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 34.58% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 33.04% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 33.00% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 31.86% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
31.71% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.90% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
- 5.17% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 5.15% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 5.12% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 5.05% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 4.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 4.85% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 4.70% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
4.67% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.74% mempool_free ▒
+ 4.83% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 3.03% _start
Thanks,
Ming
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO from remote numa node
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:24:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOhcOv1oOwm6fco+@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:26:53AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-07-09 09:38, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I observed that NVMe performance is very bad when running fio on one
> > CPU(aarch64) in remote numa node compared with the nvme pci numa node.
> >
> > Please see the test result[1] 327K vs. 34.9K.
> >
> > Latency trace shows that one big difference is in iommu_dma_unmap_sg(),
> > 1111 nsecs vs 25437 nsecs.
>
> Are you able to dig down further into that? iommu_dma_unmap_sg() itself
> doesn't do anything particularly special, so whatever makes a difference is
> probably happening at a lower level, and I suspect there's probably an SMMU
> involved. If for instance it turns out to go all the way down to
> __arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_consumed() because polling MMIO from the wrong
> node is slow, there's unlikely to be much you can do about that other than
> the global "go faster" knobs (iommu.strict and iommu.passthrough) with their
> associated compromises.
Follows the log of 'perf report'
1) good(run fio from cpus in the nvme's numa node)
- 34.86% 1.73% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 33.13% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 32.93% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 24.92% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 20.08% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 19.79% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 19.55% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 16.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 16.81% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 14.73% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
14.44% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
0.89% __pi_memset ▒
0.75% arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain ▒
+ 1.58% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
+ 0.71% iommu_dma_free_iova ▒
- 3.25% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 3.21% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 3.14% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 2.86% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 2.48% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 2.47% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 2.19% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
2.16% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 1.34% mempool_free ▒
+ 7.68% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 1.73% _start
2) bad(run fio from cpus not in the nvme's numa node)
- 49.25% 3.03% fio [nvme] [k] nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.22% nvme_process_cq ▒
- 46.07% nvme_pci_complete_rq ▒
- 41.02% nvme_unmap_data ▒
- 34.92% dma_unmap_sg_attrs ▒
- 34.75% iommu_dma_unmap_sg ▒
- 34.58% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 33.04% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 33.00% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 31.86% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
31.71% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.90% iommu_unmap_fast ▒
- 5.17% dma_unmap_page_attrs ▒
- 5.15% iommu_dma_unmap_page ▒
- 5.12% __iommu_dma_unmap_swiotlb ▒
- 5.05% __iommu_dma_unmap ▒
- 4.86% arm_smmu_iotlb_sync ▒
- 4.85% arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain ▒
- 4.70% __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range ▒
4.67% arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist ▒
+ 0.74% mempool_free ▒
+ 4.83% nvme_complete_rq ▒
+ 3.03% _start
Thanks,
Ming
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-09 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-09 8:38 [bug report] iommu_dma_unmap_sg() is very slow then running IO from remote numa node Ming Lei
2021-07-09 8:38 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 8:38 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 10:16 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-09 10:16 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-09 10:16 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-09 14:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 14:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 14:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 10:26 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 10:26 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 10:26 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 11:04 ` John Garry
2021-07-09 11:04 ` John Garry
2021-07-09 11:04 ` John Garry
2021-07-09 12:34 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 12:34 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 12:34 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-09 14:24 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2021-07-09 14:24 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-09 14:24 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-19 16:14 ` John Garry
2021-07-19 16:14 ` John Garry
2021-07-19 16:14 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 1:40 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 1:40 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 1:40 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 9:23 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 9:23 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 9:23 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 9:59 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 9:59 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 9:59 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 11:07 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 11:07 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 11:07 ` John Garry
2021-07-21 11:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 11:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-21 11:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 7:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 7:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 7:58 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 10:05 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 10:05 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 10:05 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 10:19 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 10:19 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 10:19 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 11:12 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 11:12 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 11:12 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 12:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-22 12:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-22 12:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-22 13:54 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 13:54 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 13:54 ` John Garry
2021-07-22 15:54 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 15:54 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 15:54 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-22 17:40 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-22 17:40 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-22 17:40 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-23 10:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-23 10:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-23 10:21 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-26 7:51 ` John Garry
2021-07-26 7:51 ` John Garry
2021-07-26 7:51 ` John Garry
2021-07-28 1:32 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 1:32 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 1:32 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 10:38 ` John Garry
2021-07-28 10:38 ` John Garry
2021-07-28 10:38 ` John Garry
2021-07-28 15:17 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 15:17 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 15:17 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-28 15:39 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-28 15:39 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-28 15:39 ` Robin Murphy
2021-08-10 9:36 ` John Garry
2021-08-10 9:36 ` John Garry
2021-08-10 9:36 ` John Garry
2021-08-10 10:35 ` Ming Lei
2021-08-10 10:35 ` Ming Lei
2021-08-10 10:35 ` Ming Lei
2021-07-27 17:08 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-27 17:08 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-27 17:08 ` Robin Murphy
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=YOhcOv1oOwm6fco+@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@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.