From: MANISH PANDEY <quic_mapa@quicinc.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>, <axboe@kernel.dk>,
<mingo@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
<sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, <kailash@google.com>,
<tkjos@google.com>, <bvanassche@google.com>,
<quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>, <quic_cang@quicinc.com>,
<quic_rampraka@quicinc.com>, <quic_narepall@quicinc.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regarding patch "block/blk-mq: Don't complete locally if capacities are different"
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:16:20 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <688ead11-c1c0-48b2-b4d1-feeb1278c692@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12a6f001-813e-4bc4-90c2-9f9ef7dc72e6@acm.org>
On 8/21/2024 10:52 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/21/24 5:29 AM, MANISH PANDEY wrote:
>> How about introducing a new rq_affinity ( may be rq_affinity = 3) for
>> using cpus_equal_capacity() using new flag QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_CAPACITY.
>>
>> if (cpu == rq->mq_ctx->cpu ||
>> (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE, &rq->q->queue_flags) &&
>> cpus_share_cache(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu) &&
>> + (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_CPU_CAPACITY, &rq->q->queue_flags))
>> && cpus_equal_capacity(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu)))
>> return false;
>>
>> Could you please consider raising similar change, if this seems fine
>> for all.
>
> I'm not sure that a change like the above would be acceptable.
>
> What is the performance impact of the above change? Redirecting
> completion interrupts from a slow core to a fast core causes additional
> cache misses if the I/O was submitted from a slow core. Are there
> perhaps use cases for which the above change slows down I/O?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Hi Bart,
> What is the performance impact of the above change?
No impact at all, as we are not changing the logic, we are just
proposing an on/off switch and give flexibility to users. Let the user
choose what's the best for their system.
Intention behind proposing a new flag is like we shouldn't break the
backward compatibility, as the change is also included in stable release
branches.
/* same CPU or cache domain and capacity? Complete locally */
if (cpu == rq->mq_ctx->cpu ||
(!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE, &rq->q->queue_flags) &&
cpus_share_cache(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu) &&
+ (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_CPU_CAPACITY, &rq->q->queue_flags) ||
cpus_equal_capacity(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu))))
return false;
So basically below would act as on/ off switch
QUEUE_FLAG_CPU_CAPACITY - with rq_affinity=1 , it will be clear
- with rq_affinity=3 , it will be set.
Regards
Mansih
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-22 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-31 13:46 Regarding patch "block/blk-mq: Don't complete locally if capacities are different" MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-01 9:25 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-01 16:05 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-02 9:03 ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-05 2:07 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-05 10:18 ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-05 17:24 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-09 0:47 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-09 0:23 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-13 16:20 ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-01 17:25 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-05 17:17 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-08-05 17:35 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-05 17:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-08-08 6:05 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-09 0:36 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-11 17:41 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-08-12 18:15 ` Sandeep Dhavale
2024-08-21 12:29 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-21 17:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-08-22 10:46 ` MANISH PANDEY [this message]
2024-08-22 14:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-08-23 7:57 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-23 12:03 ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-23 13:49 ` MANISH PANDEY
2024-08-23 14:12 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-08-26 17:32 ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-01 17:13 ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-09 0:28 ` Qais Yousef
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=688ead11-c1c0-48b2-b4d1-feeb1278c692@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_mapa@quicinc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=bvanassche@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dhavale@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=kailash@google.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quic_cang@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_narepall@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_rampraka@quicinc.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tkjos@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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