From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: only run mapped hw queues in blk_mq_run_hw_queues()
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:41:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180406084106.GA8940@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3a72f42f-db90-6092-5e1b-0579d2095daa@de.ibm.com>
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 07:39:56PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2018 06:11 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> Could you please apply the following patch and provide the dmesg boot log?
> >
> > And please post out the 'lscpu' log together from the test machine too.
>
> attached.
>
> As I said before this seems to go way with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=64 or smaller.
> We have 282 nr_cpu_ids here (max 141CPUs on that z13 with SMT2) but only 8 Cores
> == 16 threads.
OK, thanks!
The most weird thing is that hctx->next_cpu is computed as 512 since
nr_cpu_id is 282, and hctx->next_cpu should have pointed to one of
possible CPU.
Looks like it is a s390 specific issue, since I can setup one queue
which has same mapping with yours:
- nr_cpu_id is 282
- CPU 0~15 is online
- 64 queues null_blk
- still run all hw queues in .complete handler
But can't reproduce this issue at all.
So please test the following patch, which may tell us why hctx->next_cpu
is computed wrong:
---
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c b/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c
index 9f8cffc8a701..638ab5c11b3c 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c
@@ -14,13 +14,12 @@
#include "blk.h"
#include "blk-mq.h"
+/*
+ * Given there isn't CPU hotplug handler in blk-mq, map all CPUs to
+ * queues even it isn't present yet.
+ */
static int cpu_to_queue_index(unsigned int nr_queues, const int cpu)
{
- /*
- * Non present CPU will be mapped to queue index 0.
- */
- if (!cpu_present(cpu))
- return 0;
return cpu % nr_queues;
}
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 90838e998f66..9b130e4b87df 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -1343,6 +1343,13 @@ static void __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
hctx_unlock(hctx, srcu_idx);
}
+static void check_next_cpu(int next_cpu, const char *str1, const char *str2)
+{
+ if (next_cpu > nr_cpu_ids)
+ printk_ratelimited("wrong next_cpu %d, %s, %s\n",
+ next_cpu, str1, str2);
+}
+
/*
* It'd be great if the workqueue API had a way to pass
* in a mask and had some smarts for more clever placement.
@@ -1352,26 +1359,29 @@ static void __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
{
bool tried = false;
+ int next_cpu = hctx->next_cpu;
if (hctx->queue->nr_hw_queues == 1)
return WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch <= 0) {
- int next_cpu;
select_cpu:
- next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask,
+ next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(next_cpu, hctx->cpumask,
cpu_online_mask);
- if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+ check_next_cpu(next_cpu, __func__, "next_and");
+ if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
next_cpu = cpumask_first_and(hctx->cpumask,cpu_online_mask);
+ check_next_cpu(next_cpu, __func__, "first_and");
+ }
/*
* No online CPU is found, so have to make sure hctx->next_cpu
* is set correctly for not breaking workqueue.
*/
- if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
- hctx->next_cpu = cpumask_first(hctx->cpumask);
- else
- hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
+ if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
+ next_cpu = cpumask_first(hctx->cpumask);
+ check_next_cpu(next_cpu, __func__, "first");
+ }
hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH;
}
@@ -1379,7 +1389,7 @@ static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
* Do unbound schedule if we can't find a online CPU for this hctx,
* and it should only happen in the path of handling CPU DEAD.
*/
- if (!cpu_online(hctx->next_cpu)) {
+ if (!cpu_online(next_cpu)) {
if (!tried) {
tried = true;
goto select_cpu;
@@ -1392,7 +1402,9 @@ static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
hctx->next_cpu_batch = 1;
return WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
}
- return hctx->next_cpu;
+
+ hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
+ return next_cpu;
}
static void __blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, bool async,
@@ -2408,6 +2420,8 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q)
mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
+ int next_cpu;
+
/*
* If no software queues are mapped to this hardware queue,
* disable it and free the request entries.
@@ -2437,8 +2451,10 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q)
/*
* Initialize batch roundrobin counts
*/
- hctx->next_cpu = cpumask_first_and(hctx->cpumask,
+ next_cpu = cpumask_first_and(hctx->cpumask,
cpu_online_mask);
+ check_next_cpu(next_cpu, __func__, "first_and");
+ hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH;
}
}
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-06 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-28 1:20 [PATCH] blk-mq: only run mapped hw queues in blk_mq_run_hw_queues() Ming Lei
2018-03-28 3:22 ` Jens Axboe
2018-03-28 7:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-28 14:38 ` Jens Axboe
2018-03-28 14:53 ` Jens Axboe
2018-03-28 15:38 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-28 15:26 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-28 15:36 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-28 15:44 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 2:00 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-29 7:23 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 9:09 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 9:40 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-29 10:10 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 10:48 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-29 10:49 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 11:43 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-29 11:49 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-30 2:53 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-04 8:18 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-05 16:05 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-05 16:11 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-05 17:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-05 17:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 8:41 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2018-04-06 8:51 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 8:53 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 9:23 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-06 10:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 13:41 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-06 14:26 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 14:58 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-06 15:11 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 15:40 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-06 11:37 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-04-06 8:35 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 9:52 ` Ming Lei
2018-03-29 10:11 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 10:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-03-29 10:13 ` Ming Lei
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=20180406084106.GA8940@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox