Re: [PATCH 3/4] blk-mq: provide internal in-flight variant

Ming Lei
2017-08-04T22:19:48Z

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/04/2017 05:17 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:01:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> We don't have to inc/dec some counter, since we can just
> >> iterate the tags. That makes inc/dec a noop, but means we
> >> have to iterate busy tags to get an in-flight count.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> >> ---
> >> block/blk-mq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> block/blk-mq.h | 2 ++
> >> block/genhd.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/genhd.h | 25 +++----------------------
> >> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> >> index 05dfa3f270ae..37035891e120 100644
> >> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> >> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> >> @@ -86,6 +86,30 @@ static void blk_mq_hctx_clear_pending(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >> sbitmap_clear_bit(&hctx->ctx_map, ctx->index_hw);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +struct mq_inflight {
> >> + struct hd_struct *part;
> >> + unsigned int inflight;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static void blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >> + struct request *rq, void *priv,
> >> + bool reserved)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mq_inflight *mi = priv;
> >> +
> >> + if (rq->part == mi->part)
> >> + mi->inflight++;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +unsigned int blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q,
> >> + struct hd_struct *part)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mq_inflight mi = { .part = part, .inflight = 0 };
> >> +
> >> + blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(q, blk_mq_check_inflight, &mi);
> >> + return mi.inflight;
> >> +}
> >
> > IMO it might not be as efficient as per-cpu variable.
> >
> > For example, NVMe on one 128-core system, if we use percpu variable,
> > it is enough to read 128 local variable from each CPU for accounting
> > one in_flight.
>
> IFF the system is configured with NR_CPUS=128. Most distros go
> much bigger. On the other hand, we know that nr_queues will
> never be bigger than the number of online cpus, not the number
> of possible cpus.

We usually use for_each_possible_cpu() for aggregating CPU
local counters, and num_possible_cpus() is the number of
CPUs polulatable in system, which is much less than NR_CPUs:

include/linux/cpumask.h:
* cpu_possible_mask- has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu is populatable

>
> > But in this way of blk_mq_in_flight(), we need to do 128
> > sbitmap search, and one sbitmap search need to read at least
> > 16 words of 'unsigned long', and total 128*16 read.
>
> If that ends up being a problem, it hasn't in testing, then we
> could always stuff an index in front of the full sbitmap.
>
> > So maybe we need to compare the two approaches first.
>
> We already did, back when this was originally posted. See the
> thread from end may / start june and the results from Brian.

Can't find the compasison data between percpu accounting vs. mq-infilight
in that thread.

Just saw Brian mentioned in patch log that percpu may reach
11.4M(I guess 'M' is missed) [1]:

"When running this on a Power system, to a single null_blk device
with 80 submission queues, irq mode 0, with 80 fio jobs, I saw IOPs
go from 1.5M IO/s to 11.4 IO/s."

But in link[2], he said mq-flight can reach 9.4M.

Could Brian explain it a bit? Maybe the two tests were run in
different settings, don't know.

Even though mq-flight is better, I guess we need to understand
the principle behind why it is better than percpu...

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=149868436905520&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=149920174301644&w=2

Thanks,
Ming