From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: blk-mq: improvement CPU hotplug (simplified version) v3
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 11:05:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200523030543.GA786407@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200522144720.GC3423299@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdl.wdc.com>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 07:47:20AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:39:23AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:15:52PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 2020-05-20 21:33, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > If vector 3 is for covering hw queue 12 ~ 15, the vector shouldn't be
> > > > shutdown when cpu 14 is offline.
> > > >> Also I am pretty sure that we don't do this way with managed IRQ. And
> > > > non-managed IRQ will be migrated to other online cpus during cpu offline,
> > > > so not an issue at all. See migrate_one_irq().
> > >
> > > Thanks for the pointer to migrate_one_irq().
> > >
> > > However, I'm not convinced the above statement is correct. My
> > > understanding is that the block driver knows which interrupt vector has
> > > been associated with which hardware queue but the blk-mq core not. It
> > > seems to me that patch 6/6 of this series is based on the following
> > > assumptions:
> > > (a) That the interrupt that is associated with a hardware queue is
> > > processed by one of the CPU's in hctx->cpumask.
> > > (b) That hardware queues do not share interrupt vectors.
> > >
> > > I don't think that either assumption is correct.
> >
> > What the patch tries to do is just:
> >
> > - when the last cpu of hctx->cpumask is going to become offline, mark
> > this hctx as inactive, then drain any inflight IO requests originated
> > from this hctx
> >
> > The correctness is that once we stops to produce request, we can drain
> > any in-flight requests before shutdown the last cpu of hctx. Then finally
> > this hctx becomes quiesced completely. Do you think this way is wrong?
> > If yes, please prove it.
>
> I don't think this applies to what Bart is saying, but there is a
> pathological case where things break down: if a driver uses managed
> irq's, but doesn't use the same affinity for the hctx's, an offline cpu
> may have been the only one providing irq handling for an online hctx.
Driver needs to keep managed interrupt alive when this hctx is active,
and blk-mq doesn't have knowledge of managed interrupt & its affinity.
For the non-normal managed-irq usage, that won't be fixed by this
patchset, and it isn't blk-mq's responsibility to cover that.
Not to mention, Bart didn't share any such example.
>
> I feel like that should be a driver bug if it were to set itself up that
> way, but I don't find anything enforces that.
Right, that is driver issue. And only driver has the knowledge of interrupt &
its affinity stuff, and such enforcement shouldn't be done in blk-mq.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-23 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-20 17:06 blk-mq: improvement CPU hotplug (simplified version) v3 Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 1/6] blk-mq: remove the bio argument to ->prepare_request Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 18:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-22 9:11 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: simplify the blk_mq_get_request calling convention Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 18:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-22 9:13 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 3/6] blk-mq: move more request initialization to blk_mq_rq_ctx_init Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 20:10 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 4/6] blk-mq: open code __blk_mq_alloc_request in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-22 9:17 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 5/6] blk-mq: add blk_mq_all_tag_iter Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 20:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-27 6:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-22 9:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-05-20 17:06 ` [PATCH 6/6] blk-mq: drain I/O when all CPUs in a hctx are offline Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-22 9:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-05-25 9:20 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-20 21:46 ` blk-mq: improvement CPU hotplug (simplified version) v3 Bart Van Assche
2020-05-21 2:57 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-21 3:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-21 4:33 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-21 19:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-22 2:39 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-22 14:47 ` Keith Busch
2020-05-23 3:05 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-05-23 15:19 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-25 4:09 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-25 15:32 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-25 16:38 ` Keith Busch
2020-05-26 0:37 ` 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=20200523030543.GA786407@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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