public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: "Javier González" <jg@lightnvm.io>
Cc: "Ming Lei" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Matias Bjørling" <mb@lightnvm.io>
Subject: Re: Large latency on blk_queue_enter
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 08:52:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a088cc3d-7d85-98bf-e7a4-93368cadd238@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6ED0F6F-EEC2-4F2A-A498-34B0882BA924@lightnvm.io>

On 05/08/2017 08:46 AM, Javier González wrote:
>> On 8 May 2017, at 16.23, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/08/2017 08:20 AM, Javier González wrote:
>>>> On 8 May 2017, at 16.13, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2017 07:44 AM, Javier González wrote:
>>>>>> On 8 May 2017, at 14.27, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:54:58PM +0200, Javier González wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find an unusual added latency(~20-30ms) on blk_queue_enter when
>>>>>>> allocating a request directly from the NVMe driver through
>>>>>>> nvme_alloc_request. I could use some help confirming that this is a bug
>>>>>>> and not an expected side effect due to something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can reproduce this latency consistently on LightNVM when mixing I/O
>>>>>>> from pblk and I/O sent through an ioctl using liblightnvm, but I don't
>>>>>>> see anything on the LightNVM side that could impact the request
>>>>>>> allocation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I have a 100% read workload sent from pblk, the max. latency is
>>>>>>> constant throughout several runs at ~80us (which is normal for the media
>>>>>>> we are using at bs=4k, qd=1). All pblk I/Os reach the nvme_nvm_submit_io
>>>>>>> function on lightnvm.c., which uses nvme_alloc_request. When we send a
>>>>>>> command from user space through an ioctl, then the max latency goes up
>>>>>>> to ~20-30ms. This happens independently from the actual command
>>>>>>> (IN/OUT). I tracked down the added latency down to the call
>>>>>>> percpu_ref_tryget_live in blk_queue_enter. Seems that the queue
>>>>>>> reference counter is not released as it should through blk_queue_exit in
>>>>>>> blk_mq_alloc_request. For reference, all ioctl I/Os reach the
>>>>>>> nvme_nvm_submit_user_cmd on lightnvm.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any idea about why this might happen? I can dig more into
>>>>>>> it, but first I wanted to make sure that I am not missing any obvious
>>>>>>> assumption, which would explain the reference counter to be held for a
>>>>>>> longer time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to check if the .q_usage_counter is working at atomic mode.
>>>>>> This counter is initialized as atomic mode, and finally switchs to
>>>>>> percpu mode via percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu() in blk_register_queue().
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for commenting Ming.
>>>>>
>>>>> The .q_usage_counter is not working on atomic mode. The queue is
>>>>> initialized normally through blk_register_queue() and the counter is
>>>>> switched to percpu mode, as you mentioned. As I understand it, this is
>>>>> how it should be, right?
>>>>
>>>> That is how it should be, yes. You're not running with any heavy
>>>> debugging options, like lockdep or anything like that?
>>>
>>> No lockdep, KASAN, kmemleak or any of the other usual suspects.
>>>
>>> What's interesting is that it only happens when one of the I/Os comes
>>> from user space through the ioctl. If I have several pblk instances on
>>> the same device (which would end up allocating a new request in
>>> parallel, potentially on the same core), the latency spike does not
>>> trigger.
>>>
>>> I also tried to bind the read thread and the liblightnvm thread issuing
>>> the ioctl to different cores, but it does not help...
>>
>> How do I reproduce this? Off the top of my head, and looking at the code,
>> I have no idea what is going on here.
> 
> Using LightNVM and liblightnvm [1] you can reproduce it by:
> 
> 1. Instantiate a pblk instance on the first channel (luns 0 - 7):
>         sudo nvme lnvm create -d nvme0n1 -n test0 -t pblk -b 0 -e 7 -f
> 2. Write 5GB to the test0 block device with a normal fio script
> 3. Read 5GB to verify that latencies are good (max. ~80-90us at bs=4k, qd=1)
> 4. Re-run 3. and in parallel send a command through liblightnvm to a
> different channel. A simple command is an erase (erase block 900 on
> channel 2, lun 0):
> 	sudo nvm_vblk line_erase /dev/nvme0n1 2 2 0 0 900
> 
> After 4. you should see a ~25-30ms latency on the read workload.
> 
> I tried to reproduce the ioctl in a more generic way to reach
> __nvme_submit_user_cmd(), but SPDK steals the whole device. Also, qemu
> is not reliable for this kind of performance testing.
> 
> If you have a suggestion on how I can mix an ioctl with normal block I/O
> read on a standard NVMe device, I'm happy to try it and see if I can
> reproduce the issue.

Just to rule out this being any hardware related delays in processing
IO:

1) Does it reproduce with a simpler command, anything close to a no-op
   that you can test?
2) What did you use to time the stall being blk_queue_enter()?


-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-08 14:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-08 11:54 Large latency on blk_queue_enter Javier González
2017-05-08 12:27 ` Ming Lei
2017-05-08 13:44   ` Javier González
2017-05-08 14:13     ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 14:20       ` Javier González
2017-05-08 14:23         ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 14:46           ` Javier González
2017-05-08 14:52             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2017-05-08 15:02               ` Javier González
2017-05-08 15:08                 ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 15:14                   ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 15:22                     ` Javier González
2017-05-08 15:25                       ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 15:38                         ` Javier González
2017-05-08 15:40                           ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 15:49                             ` Javier González
2017-05-08 16:06                               ` Jens Axboe
2017-05-08 16:39                                 ` Javier González
2017-05-09 10:34                                   ` Javier González
2017-05-09 10:58                                     ` Ming Lei
2017-05-09 11:21                                       ` Javier González
2017-05-09 14:21                                         ` Javier González

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=a088cc3d-7d85-98bf-e7a4-93368cadd238@fb.com \
    --to=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jg@lightnvm.io \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mb@lightnvm.io \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.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