From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>,
Jan Karcher <jaka@linux.ibm.com>,
kgraul@linux.ibm.com
Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 17:10:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <901fbb4e-9dd0-adb8-a854-44930a601a9d@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c97c4313-8d20-98c6-7f5e-3bac8b00093d@linux.alibaba.com>
Hi Wenjia and Jan,
I'm not sure whether my guess is right, I need some help from you. I guess the smcd_ops register_dmb()
is not thread-safe, after I remove the lock, different connections might get the same sba_idx, which will cause
the connection to be lost in the map(smcd->conn). If so, the CDC message carrying close/abort information cannot be
distributed to the correct connection, then the connection remains in link group abnormally.
/* Set a connection using this DMBE. */
void smc_ism_set_conn(struct smc_connection *conn)
{
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&conn->lgr->smcd->lock, flags);
conn->lgr->smcd->conn[conn->rmb_desc->sba_idx] = conn;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conn->lgr->smcd->lock, flags);
}
struct smcd_ops {
int (*register_dmb)(struct smcd_dev *dev, struct smcd_dmb *dmb);
}
On 11/7/22 7:05 PM, D. Wythe wrote:
>
> Hi Wenjia,
>
> Thanks a lot for your information, before that we thought you did PATCH test one by one,
> now I think I have found the root cause, and I will release a new version to fix this
> soon as possible.
>
> Best Wishes.
> D. Wythe
>
> On 11/2/22 9:55 PM, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01.11.22 08:22, D. Wythe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
>>> Our team conducted some code reviews over this, but unfortunately no obvious problems were found. Hence
>>> we are waiting for Tony Lu's virtual SMC-D device to test, which is expected to come in this week. Before that,
>>> I wonder if your tests are running separately on separate PATCH? If so, I would like to please you to test
>>> the first PATCH and the second PATCH together. I doubt that the problem repaired by the second PATCH
>>> is the cause of this issues.
>>>
>>> Best Wishes.
>>> D. Wythe
>>>
>>
>> Hi D. Wythe,
>>
>> We did test the series of the patches as a whole. That would be great if you could use Tony's virtual device to test SMC-D. By the way, I'll put your patches in our CI, let's see if it can find something.
>>
>> Best,
>> Wenjia
>>>
>>> On 10/24/22 9:11 PM, Jan Karcher wrote:
>>>> Hi D. Wythe,
>>>>
>>>> I re-run the tests with your fix.
>>>> SMC-R works fine now. For SMC-D we still have the following problem. It is kind of the same as i reported in v2 but even weirder:
>>>>
>>>> smc stats:
>>>>
>>>> t8345011
>>>> SMC-D Connections Summary
>>>> Total connections handled 2465
>>>> SMC-R Connections Summary
>>>> Total connections handled 232
>>>>
>>>> t8345010
>>>> SMC-D Connections Summary
>>>> Total connections handled 2290
>>>> SMC-R Connections Summary
>>>> Total connections handled 231
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> smc linkgroups:
>>>>
>>>> t8345011
>>>> [root@t8345011 ~]# smcr linkgroup
>>>> LG-ID LG-Role LG-Type VLAN #Conns PNET-ID
>>>> 00000400 SERV SYM 0 0 NET25
>>>> [root@t8345011 ~]# smcd linkgroup
>>>> LG-ID VLAN #Conns PNET-ID
>>>> 00000300 0 16 NET25
>>>>
>>>> t8345010
>>>> [root@t8345010 tela-kernel]# smcr linkgroup
>>>> LG-ID LG-Role LG-Type VLAN #Conns PNET-ID
>>>> 00000400 CLNT SYM 0 0 NET25
>>>> [root@t8345010 tela-kernel]# smcd linkgroup
>>>> LG-ID VLAN #Conns PNET-ID
>>>> 00000300 0 1 NET25
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> smcss:
>>>>
>>>> t8345011
>>>> [root@t8345011 ~]# smcss
>>>> State UID Inode Local Address Peer Address Intf Mode
>>>>
>>>> t8345010
>>>> [root@t8345010 tela-kernel]# smcss
>>>> State UID Inode Local Address Peer Address Intf Mode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lsmod:
>>>>
>>>> t8345011
>>>> [root@t8345011 ~]# lsmod | grep smc
>>>> smc 225280 18 ism,smc_diag
>>>> t8345010
>>>> [root@t8345010 tela-kernel]# lsmod | grep smc
>>>> smc 225280 3 ism,smc_diag
>>>>
>>>> Also smc_dbg and netstat do not show any more information on this problem. We only see in the dmesg that the code seems to build up SMC-R linkgroups even tho we are running the SMC-D tests.
>>>> NOTE: we disabled the syncookies for the tests.
>>>>
>>>> dmesg:
>>>>
>>>> t8345011
>>>> smc-tests: test_smcapp_torture_test started
>>>> kernel: TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 22465. Dropping request. Check SNMP counters.
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000401, peerid 00000401, ibdev mlx5_0, ibport 1
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SINGLE, pnetid NET25
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000402, peerid 00000402, ibdev mlx5_1, ibport 1
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SYMMETRIC, pnetid NET25
>>>>
>>>> t8345010
>>>> smc-tests: test_smcapp_torture_test started
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000401, peerid 00000401, ibdev mlx5_0, ibport 1
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SINGLE, pnetid NET25
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000402, peerid 00000402, ibdev mlx5_1, ibport 1
>>>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SYMMETRIC, pnetid NET25
>>>>
>>>> If this output does not help and if you want us to look deeper into it feel free to let us know and we can debug further.
>>>>
>>>> On 23/10/2022 14:43, D.Wythe wrote:
>>>>> From: "D.Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections,
>>>>> mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix exceptions that
>>>>> occur after thoses optimization.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Off-CPU graph, SMC worker's off-CPU as that:
>>>>>
>>>>> smc_close_passive_work (1.09%)
>>>>> smcr_buf_unuse (1.08%)
>>>>> smc_llc_flow_initiate (1.02%)
>>>>>
>>>>> smc_listen_work (48.17%)
>>>>> __mutex_lock.isra.11 (47.96%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An ideal SMC-R connection process should only block on the IO events
>>>>> of the network, but it's quite clear that the SMC-R connection now is
>>>>> queued on the lock most of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of this patchset is to achieve our ideal situation where
>>>>> network IO events are blocked for the majority of the connection lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are three big locks here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. smc_client_lgr_pending & smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. llc_conf_mutex
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. rmbs_lock & sndbufs_lock
>>>>>
>>>>> And an implementation issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. confirm/delete rkey msg can't be sent concurrently while
>>>>> protocol allows indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately,The above problems together affect the parallelism of
>>>>> SMC-R connection. If any of them are not solved. our goal cannot
>>>>> be achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> After this patch set, we can get a quite ideal off-CPU graph as
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> smc_close_passive_work (41.58%)
>>>>> smcr_buf_unuse (41.57%)
>>>>> smc_llc_do_delete_rkey (41.57%)
>>>>>
>>>>> smc_listen_work (39.10%)
>>>>> smc_clc_wait_msg (13.18%)
>>>>> tcp_recvmsg_locked (13.18)
>>>>> smc_listen_find_device (25.87%)
>>>>> smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs (25.87%)
>>>>> smc_llc_do_confirm_rkey (25.87%)
>>>>>
>>>>> We can see that most of the waiting times are waiting for network IO
>>>>> events. This also has a certain performance improvement on our
>>>>> short-lived conenction wrk/nginx benchmark test:
>>>>>
>>>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>>> |conns/qps |c4 | c8 | c16 | c32 | c64 | c200 |
>>>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>>> |SMC-R before |9.7k | 10k | 10k | 9.9k | 9.1k | 8.9k |
>>>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>>> |SMC-R now |13k | 19k | 18k | 16k | 15k | 12k |
>>>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>>> |TCP |15k | 35k | 51k | 80k | 100k | 162k |
>>>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason why the benefit is not obvious after the number of connections
>>>>> has increased dues to workqueue. If we try to change workqueue to UNBOUND,
>>>>> we can obtain at least 4-5 times performance improvement, reach up to half
>>>>> of TCP. However, this is not an elegant solution, the optimization of it
>>>>> will be much more complicated. But in any case, we will submit relevant
>>>>> optimization patches as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the premise here is that the lock related problem
>>>>> must be solved first, otherwise, no matter how we optimize the workqueue,
>>>>> there won't be much improvement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there are a lot of related changes to the code, if you have
>>>>> any questions or suggestions, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> D. Wythe
>>>>>
>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Fix panic in SMC-D scenario
>>>>> 2. Fix lnkc related hashfn calculation exception, caused by operator
>>>>> priority
>>>>> 3. Only wake up one connection if the lnk is not active
>>>>> 4. Delete obsolete unlock logic in smc_listen_work()
>>>>> 5. PATCH format, do Reverse Christmas tree
>>>>> 6. PATCH format, change all xxx_lnk_xxx function to xxx_link_xxx
>>>>> 7. PATCH format, add correct fix tag for the patches for fixes.
>>>>> 8. PATCH format, fix some spelling error
>>>>> 9. PATCH format, rename slow to do_slow
>>>>>
>>>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. add SMC-D support, remove the concept of link cluster since SMC-D has
>>>>> no link at all. Replace it by lgr decision maker, who provides suggestions
>>>>> to SMC-D and SMC-R on whether to create new link group.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Fix the corruption problem described by PATCH 'fix application
>>>>> data exception' on SMC-D.
>>>>>
>>>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Fix panic caused by uninitialization map.
>>>>>
>>>>> D. Wythe (10):
>>>>> net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and
>>>>> smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>>> net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>>> net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex
>>>>> net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently
>>>>> net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore
>>>>> net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in
>>>>> smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse()
>>>>> net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs()
>>>>> net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore
>>>>> net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected
>>>>> smc_llc_srv_add_link()
>>>>> net/smc: fix application data exception
>>>>>
>>>>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 70 ++++----
>>>>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 478 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>> net/smc/smc_core.h | 36 +++-
>>>>> net/smc/smc_llc.c | 277 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>> net/smc/smc_llc.h | 6 +
>>>>> net/smc/smc_wr.c | 10 --
>>>>> net/smc/smc_wr.h | 10 ++
>>>>> 7 files changed, 712 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
>>>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-09 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-23 12:43 [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 01/10] net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 02/10] net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 03/10] net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 04/10] net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 05/10] net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 06/10] net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse() D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:43 ` [PATCH net-next v4 07/10] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:44 ` [PATCH net-next v4 08/10] net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:44 ` [PATCH net-next v4 09/10] net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected smc_llc_srv_add_link() D.Wythe
2022-10-23 12:44 ` [PATCH net-next v4 10/10] net/smc: fix application data exception D.Wythe
2022-10-24 13:11 ` [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections Jan Karcher
2022-10-26 7:20 ` D. Wythe
2022-11-01 7:22 ` D. Wythe
2022-11-02 13:55 ` Wenjia Zhang
2022-11-07 11:05 ` D. Wythe
2022-11-09 9:10 ` D. Wythe [this message]
2022-11-09 17:31 ` Wenjia Zhang
2022-11-10 7:54 ` D. Wythe
2022-11-10 9:39 ` D. Wythe
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=901fbb4e-9dd0-adb8-a854-44930a601a9d@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jaka@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wenjia@linux.ibm.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