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>, "Ming Lei" <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: Large latency on blk_queue_enter
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 08:13:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bbe256c2-f9ff-e594-45c9-7f9ac233ee7a@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <76E35BA3-FEC9-46D6-B36F-554F464FA9ED@lightnvm.io>

On 05/08/2017 07:44 AM, Javier Gonz�lez 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 Gonz�lez 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?

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-08 14:13 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 [this message]
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
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=bbe256c2-f9ff-e594-45c9-7f9ac233ee7a@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=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