Re: [RFC PATCH] dm: fix excessive dm-mq context switching

[Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>]

On 02/09/2016 03:55 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09 2016 at  2:50am -0500,
> Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/07/2016 06:20 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 07 2016 at 11:54am -0500,
>>> Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If so, can you check with e.g.
>>>>>> perf record -ags -e LLC-load-misses sleep 10 && perf report whether this
>>>>>> workload triggers perhaps lock contention ? What you need to look for in
>>>>>> the perf output is whether any functions occupy more than 10% CPU time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will, thanks for the tip!
>>>>
>>>> The perf report is very similar to the one that started this effort..
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid we'll need to resolve the per-target m->lock in order
>>>> to scale with NUMA...
>>>
>>> Could be.  Just for testing, you can try the 2 topmost commits I've put
>>> here (once applied both __multipath_map and multipath_busy won't have
>>> _any_ locking.. again, very much test-only):
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/snitzer/linux.git/log/?h=devel2
>>>
>> So, I gave those patches a spin.
>> Sad to say, they do _not_ resolve the issue fully.
>>
>> My testbed (2 paths per LUN, 40 CPUs, 4 cores) yields 505k IOPs with
>> those patches.
> 
> That isn't a surprise.  We knew the m->lock spinlock contention to be a
> problem.  And NUMA makes it even worse.
> 
>> Using a single path (without those patches, but still running
>> multipath on top of that path) the same testbed yields 550k IOPs.
>> Which very much smells like a lock contention ...
>> We do get a slight improvement, though; without those patches I
>> could only get about 350k IOPs. But still, I would somehow expect 2
>> paths to be faster than just one ..
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2016-February/msg00036.html
> 
> hint hint...
> 
I hoped they wouldn't be needed with your patches.
Plus perf revealed that I first need to address a spinlock
contention in the lpfc driver before that even would make sense.

So more debugging to follow.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		   Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)