From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: reduce kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on() CPU consumption
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:59:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53b6fac0-10cb-80ab-16e7-ee851b720d5e@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YbiyhcbZmnNbed3O@infradead.org>
On 12/14/21 8:04 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:53:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Dexuan reports that he's seeing spikes of very heavy CPU utilization when
>> running 24 disks and using the 'none' scheduler. This happens off the
>> flush path, because SCSI requires the queue to be restarted async, and
>> hence we're hammering on mod_delayed_work_on() to ensure that the work
>> item gets run appropriately.
>>
>> What we care about here is that the queue is run, and we don't need to
>> repeatedly re-arm the timer associated with the delayed work item. If we
>> check if the work item is pending upfront, then we don't really need to do
>> anything else. This is safe as theh work pending bit is cleared before a
>> work item is started.
>>
>> The only potential caveat here is if we have callers with wildly different
>> timeouts specified. That's generally not the case, so don't think we need
>> to care for that case.
>
> So why not do a non-delayed queue_work for that case? Might be good
> to get the scsi and workqueue maintaines involved to understand the
> issue a bit better first.
We can probably get by with doing just that, and just ignore if a delayed
work timer is already running.
Dexuan, can you try this one?
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 1378d084c770..c1833f95cb97 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kblockd_schedule_work);
int kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on(int cpu, struct delayed_work *dwork,
unsigned long delay)
{
+ if (!delay)
+ return queue_work_on(cpu, kblockd_workqueue, &dwork->work);
return mod_delayed_work_on(cpu, kblockd_workqueue, dwork, delay);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on);
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-14 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-14 14:53 [PATCH] block: reduce kblockd_mod_delayed_work_on() CPU consumption Jens Axboe
2021-12-14 15:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-14 15:59 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-12-14 20:42 ` Dexuan Cui
2021-12-15 17:40 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-12-16 7:22 ` 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=53b6fac0-10cb-80ab-16e7-ee851b720d5e@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=decui@microsoft.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).