From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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 12:04:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a44e8a68-d789-e3db-4fbb-404defb431f6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On 09/07/2021 11:26, Robin Murphy wrote:
> n 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.
There was also the disable_msipolling option:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c#n42
But I am not sure if that platform even supports MSI polling (or has
smmu v3).
You could also try iommu.forcedac=1 cmdline option. But I doubt it will
help since the issue was mentioned to be NUMA related.
>
> Robin.
>
>> [1] fio test & results
>>
>> 1) fio test result:
>>
>> - run fio on local CPU
>> taskset -c 0 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 327K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 1111 nsecs
>>
>>
>> - run fio on remote CPU
>> taskset -c 80 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 34.9K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 25437 nsecs
>>
>> 2) system info
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# lscpu | grep NUMA
>> NUMA node(s): 2
>> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-79
>> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 80-159
>>
>> lspci | grep NVMe
>> 0003:01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Samsung Electronics Co
>> Ltd NVMe SSD Controller SM981/PM981/PM983
>>
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# cat /sys/block/nvme1n1/device/device/numa_node
Since it's ampere, I guess it's smmu v3.
BTW, if you remember, I did raise a performance issue of smmuv3 with
NVMe before:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/b2a6e26d-6d0d-7f0d-f222-589812f701d2@huawei.com/
I did have this series to improve performance for systems with lots of
CPUs, like above, but not accepted:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1598018062-175608-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <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 12:04:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a44e8a68-d789-e3db-4fbb-404defb431f6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On 09/07/2021 11:26, Robin Murphy wrote:
> n 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.
There was also the disable_msipolling option:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c#n42
But I am not sure if that platform even supports MSI polling (or has
smmu v3).
You could also try iommu.forcedac=1 cmdline option. But I doubt it will
help since the issue was mentioned to be NUMA related.
>
> Robin.
>
>> [1] fio test & results
>>
>> 1) fio test result:
>>
>> - run fio on local CPU
>> taskset -c 0 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 327K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 1111 nsecs
>>
>>
>> - run fio on remote CPU
>> taskset -c 80 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 34.9K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 25437 nsecs
>>
>> 2) system info
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# lscpu | grep NUMA
>> NUMA node(s): 2
>> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-79
>> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 80-159
>>
>> lspci | grep NVMe
>> 0003:01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Samsung Electronics Co
>> Ltd NVMe SSD Controller SM981/PM981/PM983
>>
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# cat /sys/block/nvme1n1/device/device/numa_node
Since it's ampere, I guess it's smmu v3.
BTW, if you remember, I did raise a performance issue of smmuv3 with
NVMe before:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/b2a6e26d-6d0d-7f0d-f222-589812f701d2@huawei.com/
I did have this series to improve performance for systems with lots of
CPUs, like above, but not accepted:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1598018062-175608-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
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: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <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 12:04:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a44e8a68-d789-e3db-4fbb-404defb431f6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23e7956b-f3b5-b585-3c18-724165994051@arm.com>
On 09/07/2021 11:26, Robin Murphy wrote:
> n 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.
There was also the disable_msipolling option:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c#n42
But I am not sure if that platform even supports MSI polling (or has
smmu v3).
You could also try iommu.forcedac=1 cmdline option. But I doubt it will
help since the issue was mentioned to be NUMA related.
>
> Robin.
>
>> [1] fio test & results
>>
>> 1) fio test result:
>>
>> - run fio on local CPU
>> taskset -c 0 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 327K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 1111 nsecs
>>
>>
>> - run fio on remote CPU
>> taskset -c 80 ~/git/tools/test/nvme/io_uring 10 1 /dev/nvme1n1 4k
>> + fio --bs=4k --ioengine=io_uring --fixedbufs --registerfiles --hipri
>> --iodepth=64 --iodepth_batch_submit=16 --iodepth_batch_complete_min=16
>> --filename=/dev/nvme1n1 --direct=1 --runtime=10 --numjobs=1
>> --rw=randread --name=test --group_reporting
>>
>> IOPS: 34.9K
>> avg latency of iommu_dma_unmap_sg(): 25437 nsecs
>>
>> 2) system info
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# lscpu | grep NUMA
>> NUMA node(s): 2
>> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-79
>> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 80-159
>>
>> lspci | grep NVMe
>> 0003:01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Samsung Electronics Co
>> Ltd NVMe SSD Controller SM981/PM981/PM983
>>
>> [root@ampere-mtjade-04 ~]# cat /sys/block/nvme1n1/device/device/numa_node
Since it's ampere, I guess it's smmu v3.
BTW, if you remember, I did raise a performance issue of smmuv3 with
NVMe before:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/b2a6e26d-6d0d-7f0d-f222-589812f701d2@huawei.com/
I did have this series to improve performance for systems with lots of
CPUs, like above, but not accepted:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1598018062-175608-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
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 11:11 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 [this message]
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
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=a44e8a68-d789-e3db-4fbb-404defb431f6@huawei.com \
--to=john.garry@huawei.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=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--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.